The Relative Risk of COVID-19 in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients Over Waves of the Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR) are at increased risk from COVID-19. Over time, the absolute risk of adverse outcomes after COVID-19 has decreased in both the non-immunosuppressed/immunocompromised (non-ISC) general population, and amongst SOTR. Using the N3C, we examined the absolute risk of mortality, major adverse renal or cardiac events, and hospitalization after COVID-19 diagnosis amongst non-ISC and SOTR populations over five waves of the pandemic (Wave 1: Ancestral COVID; Wave 2: Alpha; Wave 3: Delta; Wave 4: Omicron; Wave 5: Omicron). Within each wave, we determined the relative risk of each outcome for SOTR versus the non-ISC population based on crude event rates, and then used multivariable cox proportional hazards models and logistic regression to determine the adjusted risk of each outcome based on SOT status. Throughout the pandemic, including during the Omicron wave (Wave 5), SOTR were at greater absolute risk for each outcome than non-ISC patients ( p -values all <0.001). The adjusted risk of SOT status for each outcome was relatively stable over time (aHR 1.28–1.61 for mortality; aHR 1.31–1.47 for MACE; aHR 1.72–1.90 for MARCE; aHR 1.75–2.07 for AKI; and aOR 1.53–1.81 for hospitalization). Despite a reduction in the absolute risk of COVID-19 complications, the relative risk for SOTR versus the non-ISC population has not improved.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".