MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Functional, Pulmonary, Psychological and Cognitive Status Up to 12 Months Post-ICU Discharge in COVID-19 Patients: A Preliminary Analysis of the International Aftercor Study

2025· article· en· W4410270971 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karin Wildi, Alessandra Bandera, Denise Battaglini, Silvia Bertagnolio, Aidan Burrell, Flaminia Campo, Ae‐Ran Choi, David Ramírez, S.-M. Cho, Sebastiano Maria Colombo, Julie Diaz, John F. Fraser, Shi-Hsia Hwa, C.L. Hodgson, Yvelynne P. Kelly, S. Khanduja, Firdavs Kurbonov, John G. Laffey, Diego Franch Llasat, Suzanne Mason, Chiara Robba, Bairbre McNicolas, Antonio Muscatello, Mauro Panigada, Jacky Y. Suen, Luis Felipe Reyes, Robert S. Ware, Jianmin Ling, Yew Woon Chia, Ping Zhang, Gianluigi Li Bassi

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Intensive care medicineCognitionMEDLINEPandemicEmergency medicineInternal medicinePsychiatryVirologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)Disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Long-term sequelae associated with COVID-19 are currently poorly defined, specifically in patients who have been discharged from intensive care units. We hypothesized that functional and pulmonary capacity, as well as mental health and cognitive function, would remain outside the normal range for up to 12 months after ICU discharge. Methods This is an international multicenter, prospective follow-up study of patients admitted to ICU due to COVID-19 (1). At 3, 6 and 12 months after ICU discharge, the following assessments were done: 6-minute walking test, Barthel Index Score (BIS), WHODAS score, spirometry, lung diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Normalized test results at any follow-up assessment were not repeated at subsequent visits. Results 354 patients from 9 sites in 6 countries (Ireland, Spain, Italy, USA, Singapore, Colombia) admitted to ICU from January 2021 to December 2022 for COVID-19 were included. Median (IQR) age was 60 years (SD 13.3y), 32.5% were females, and 22 patients (6.2%) died during follow-up. The 6-min walking test was outside a normal range in 97.7%, 98% and 99.1% of the patients at 3, 6 and 12 months, with a mean walking distance of 359, 392 and 433 meters, respectively (Fig.1A). The BIS score was not normalized in 12.4%, 23.5% and 28% (Fig.1B), the WHODAS score in 22.2%, 56.4% and 45.2% (Fig.1C) at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively. FVC and FEV1 were outside normal limits in 64.3% of the patients at 3 months, 34.7% and 32.9% at 6 months, 33.8% and 27.7% at 12 months (Fig.1D/E). DLCO was abnormal in 62.4%, 78.4% and 80.6% (Fig.1F) of patients, at 3, 6 and 12 months. As shown by the HADS, anxiety was present in 28.9%, 26.9% and 32.7% (Fig.1G) of the patients, while 30.2%, 26.9% and 32.7% (Fig.1H) had significant depression at 3, 6 and 12 months. The PHQ-9 was outside normal range in 66.4%, 66.2% and 72.2% (Fig 1I) of the patients, while the MOCA test revealed cognitive impairment in 40.8%, 30% and 32.5% of the patients at 3, 6 and 12 months. Conclusion The assessment of COVID-19 patients up to 12 months post-ICU discharge indicates that pulmonary function and mental health remain outside the normal range in a significant proportion of patients, with one-third of patients experiencing cognitive impairment. A comprehensive evaluation of the pre-ICU admission status is currently underway.

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.337 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine→Same topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders→French-language works237,207→