MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404838205 · doi:10.1370/afm.22.s1.5999

Understanding symptoms suggestive of Long COVID Syndrome and healthcare use among community-based populations

2024· article· en· W4404838205 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Leanne Kosowan, Alan Katz, Diana C. Sanchez‐Ramirez

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineContext (archaeology)Health careDescriptive statisticsPopulationIntervention (counseling)Family medicineEnvironmental healthNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context: Long COVID Syndrome (LCS), defined as symptoms for ≥3 months, can include a variety of symptoms such as fatigue, cognitive impairment, shortness of breath, and headaches. Estimates of LCS have relied on medical records which may underestimate true prevalence. Objective: This study aimed to characterize populations with COVID-19 and LCS, describes symptoms, and health care utilization by presenting symptoms. Study Design and Analysis: Two survey’s captured acute COVID-19 symptoms, LCS symptoms, and health care utilization. Descriptive and bivariate analysis assessed populations that did, and did not, access health care based on LCS symptoms. Setting or Dataset: One Survey was disseminated to all residents in Manitoba, Canada, a second to Manitobans accessing a medical fitness center (MFC). Population Studies: In March 2022, members of a MFC were surveyed. Between June-October 2022 an online survey was advertised to all Manitobans using social media, traditional media, and poster distribution. Intervention/Instrument: The survey included 23 questions (7 on COVID-19, 4 on LCS, 7 on health service utilization and 4 demographic). Outcome Measures: Characteristics of patients with COVID-19, LCS symptoms, and healthcare access. Results: In total, we received 921 survey responses. There were 267 responses from the MFC and 654 online responses. Among MFC respondents, 130 (48.7%) reported experiencing LCS. Online 334 (54.2%) respondents reported LCS symptoms. Despite LCS symptoms, only half of respondents accessed primary care (MFC 57.5%, online 63.2%). Among online respondents, 15.2% accessed an ED, and 32.0% accessed a specialist or therapist. Symptoms associated with primary care access included extreme fatigue (MFC 56.5% online 95.9%), shortness of breath (MDC 60.9%, online 87.8%), cognitive impairment (MFC 52.2%, online 77.0%), and headaches (MFC 39.1%, online 92.6%). Online respondents reported shortness of breath was the most common reason for accessing the ED (90.5%). The majority of online respondents that saw a specialist or therapist (89.7%) reduced their activities due to symptoms and 20.6% required assistance with day-to-day activities. Conclusions: The survey captured experiences of patients with and without health system use and confirms that health records data underrepresents COVID-19 and LCS. The variety of symptoms experienced presents a challenge for health care providers demonstrating the value of interdisciplinary care teams.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.271
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.127
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19→French-language works237,207→