Patient characteristics associated with clinically coded long COVID: an OpenSAFELY study using electronic health records
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinically coded long COVID cases in electronic health records (EHRs) are incomplete, despite reports of rising cases of long COVID. AIM: To determine patient characteristics associated with clinically coded long COVID. DESIGN & SETTING: With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a cohort study using EHRs within the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform in England, to study patient characteristics associated with clinically coded long COVID from 29 January 2020 to 31 March 2022. METHOD: We summarised the distribution of characteristics for people with clinically coded long COVID. We estimated age-sex adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and fully aHRs for coded long COVID. Patient characteristics included demographic factors, and health behavioural and clinical factors. RESULTS: Among 17 986 419 adults, 36 886 (0.21%) were clinically coded with long COVID. Patient characteristics associated with coded long COVID included female sex, younger age (aged <60 years), obesity, living in less deprived areas, ever smoking, greater consultation frequency, and history of diagnosed asthma, mental health conditions, pre-pandemic post-viral fatigue, or psoriasis. These associations were attenuated following two doses of COVID-19 vaccines compared with before vaccination. Differences in the predictors of coded long COVID between the pre-vaccination and post-vaccination cohorts may reflect the different patient characteristics in these two cohorts rather than the vaccination status. Incidence of coded long COVID was higher in those with hospitalised COVID-19 than with those with non-hospitalised COVID-19. CONCLUSION: We identified variation in coded long COVID by patient characteristic. Results should be interpreted with caution as long COVID was likely under-recorded in EHRs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".