MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413344518 · doi:10.1101/2025.08.14.25333639

Comparative Analysis of Long COVID and Post-Vaccination Syndrome: A Cross-Sectional Study of Clinical Symptoms and Machine Learning-Based Differentiation

2025· preprint· en· W4413344518 on OpenAlexaff
Harlan M. Krumholz, Mitsuaki Sawano, Yilun Wu, Rishi Shah, Tianna Zhou, Adith S. Arun, Shayaan Kaleem, Anushree Vashist, Bornali Bhattacharjee, Yuan Lu, Frederick Warner, Chenxi Huang, Leying Guan, César Caraballo, David Putrino, Danice Hertz, Brianne Dressen, Teresa Michelsen, Liza Fisher, Cynthia Adinig, Pamela Bishop, Akiko Iwasaki

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCross-sectional studyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakVaccinationMedicinePsychologyVirologyComputer scienceInternal medicineOutbreakPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Importance Long COVID is a well-documented post-viral syndrome, while post-vaccination syndrome (PVS) remains poorly characterized. Understanding their similarities and differences is essential for refining diagnostic criteria and developing targeted interventions. This study systematically compares the symptomatology of long COVID and PVS following COVID-19 vaccination, highlighting key distinctions that could inform clinical practice and research. Objective To assess the clinical characteristics of long COVID and PVS and identify key distinguishing features between the conditions. Design, Setting and Participants This cross-sectional analysis used questionnaire data from the decentralized Yale Listen to Immune, Symptom and Treatment Experiences Now (LISTEN) Study, collected from May 2022 to July 2023. Data analysis occurred between July 2023 and May 2024. A convenience sample of adults (age ≥18 years) with either long COVID or PVS was included. Main Outcomes and Measures Symptom data were analyzed using clustering techniques to identify groups with shared symptom patterns. A gradient-boosted machine learning model was used to determine the most distinguishing symptoms between long COVID and PVS. Results The long COVID group (n = 441) and PVS group (n = 241) had similar demographic profiles (median age 46 years; 74% vs 80% female, respectively). Participants with long COVID most commonly reported brain fog, altered sense of smell and taste, shortness of breath, fatigue, memory problems, and difficulty speaking. Participants with PVS more frequently reported burning sensations, neuropathy, and numbness. Clustering analysis identified three symptom-based subgroups: one enriched for neurological symptoms and PVS; one characterized by multi-system symptoms and predominantly long COVID; and one dominated by psychiatric and sleep symptoms, also primarily long COVID. The machine learning model achieved an AUC of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.75–0.82) and highlighted altered sense of smell, cough, burning sensations, and brain fog as key differentiators. Conclusions and Relevance Although long COVID and PVS share overlapping symptoms, they have distinct clinical profiles, suggesting the possibility of different underlying biological mechanisms. These distinctions may help refine diagnostic criteria, guide personalized treatment strategies, and inform further research into their respective pathophysiology. KEY POINTS Question What are the similarities and differences between long COVID and post-vaccination syndrome (PVS)? Findings In this cross-sectional study of 682 individuals, machine learning models identified distinct symptoms between long COVID and PVS. Long COVID was characterized by brain fog, altered sense of smell, and shortness of breath, while PVS was associated with burning sensations, neuropathy, and numbness. Meaning Although long COVID and PVS share overlapping symptoms, they have distinctive symptom profiles, suggesting potentially different underlying biological mechanisms. Understanding these differences can guide clinical diagnosis and targeted management, and inform further research into their distinct immune and biological pathways.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.362 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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