ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Quantitative CT Texture Analysis of COVID-19 Hospitalized Patients during 3-24-Month Follow-Up and Correlation with Functional Parameters.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term chest CT abnormalities up to 4.5 years after COVID-19 hospitalization and their association with dyspnea and fatigue: a prospective cohort study.Respiratory research · 2026Article
- Response to "Enhancing the Study of Long-Term Pulmonary Sequelae After COVID-19: Methodological Perspectives on Imaging and Clinical Integration".Korean journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Long-term trends in Post-COVID severity: a machine learning analysis from the POP/COVIDOM cohort of the German NAPKON Cohort Network.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Serum Lactate Dehydrogenase Levels Reflect the Lung Injury Extension in COVID-19 Patients at Hospital Admission.Immunity, inflammation and disease · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo quantitatively evaluate CT lung abnormalities in COVID-19 survivors from the acute phase to 24-month follow-up. Quantitative CT features as predictors of abnormalities' persistence were investigated.
methodsPatients who survived COVID-19 were retrospectively enrolled and underwent a chest CT at baseline (T0) and 3 months (T3) after discharge, with pulmonary function tests (PFTs). Patients with residual CT abnormalities repeated the CT at 12 (T12) and 24 (T24) months after discharge. A machine-learning-based software, CALIPER, calculated the CT percentage of the whole lung of normal parenchyma, ground glass (GG), reticulation (Ret), and vascular-related structures (VRSs). Differences (Δ) were calculated between time points. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were performed to test the baseline parameters as predictors of functional impairment at T3 and of the persistence of CT abnormalities at T12.
resultsThe cohort included 128 patients at T0, 133 at T3, 61 at T12, and 34 at T24. The GG medians were 8.44%, 0.14%, 0.13% and 0.12% at T0, T3, T12 and T24. The Ret medians were 2.79% at T0 and 0.14% at the following time points. All Δ significantly differed from 0, except between T12 and T24. The GG and VRSs at T0 achieved AUCs of 0.73 as predictors of functional impairment, and area under the curves (AUCs) of 0.71 and 0.72 for the persistence of CT abnormalities at T12.
conclusionsCALIPER accurately quantified the CT changes up to the 24-month follow-up. Resolution mostly occurred at T3, and Ret persisting at T12 was almost unchanged at T24. The baseline parameters were good predictors of functional impairment at T3 and of abnormalities' persistence at T12.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.