CT scan-derived pectoralis muscle parameters are closely associated with COVID-19 outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The relationships between pectoralis muscle parameters and outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain uncertain. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library from 1 January 2019 to 1 May 2024 to identify non-overlapping studies evaluating pectoralis muscle-associated index on chest CT scan with clinical outcome in COVID-19 patients. Random-effects and fixed-effects meta-analyses were performed, and heterogeneity between studies was quantified using the I2 statistic. The risk of study bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Funnel plots for detecting small-study effects. RESULTS: A total of 9 studies with 4109 COVID-19 patients were included. The meta-analysis findings revealed a correlation between pectoralis muscle parameters and COVID-19 prognosis. Specifically, patients with higher pectoralis muscle density (PMD) exhibited a lower mortality risk, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.92-0.99). The rate of intubation was lower in COVID-19 patients with a high pectoralis muscle index (PMI) (OR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.92-1.00). CONCLUSION: In summary, a low PMD is associated with a marginally elevated risk of mortality, whereas a decreased PMI represents a risk factor for intubation in COVID-19 patients. These findings suggest that pectoralis muscle parameters on chest CT may be a useful prognostic tool for COVID-19 patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".