Prognostic value of albumin-to-globulin ratio in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The albumin-to-globulin ratio (AGR) has been used to predict severity and mortality in infectious diseases. The aim of this study is to evaluate the prognostic value of the AGR in COVID-19 patients.A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. We included observational studies assessing the association between the AGR values upon hospital admission and severity or all-cause mortality in COVID-19 patients. In the meta-analyses we used random effect models. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The effect measures were expressed as mean difference (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). We performed Egger's test and funnel plots to assess the publication bias.The included studies had a total of 11356 patients corresponding to 31 cohort studies. Severe COVID-19 patients had lower AGR values than non-severe COVID-19 patients (mean difference (MD), -0.27; 95% IC, -0.32 to -0.22; p < 0.001; I2 = 88%). Non-survivor patients with COVID-19 had lower AGR values than survivor patients (MD, -0.29; 95% IC, -0.35 to -0.24; p < 0.001; I2 = 79%). In the sensitivity analysis, we only included studies with low risk of bias, which decreased the heterogeneity for both outcomes (severity, I2 = 20%; mortality, I2 = 5%).Low AGR values upon hospital admission were found in COVID-19 patients with a worse prognosis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".