Search

ObjectivesCOVID-19 is a heterogeneous disease, and many reports have described variations in demographic, biochemical and clinical features at presentation influencing overall hospital mortality. However, there is little information regarding longitudinal changes in laboratory prognostic variables in relation to disease progression in hospitalised patients with COVID-19.Design and settingThis retrospective observational report describes disease progression from symptom onset, to admission to hospital, clinical response and discharge/death among patients with COVID-19 at a tertiary centre in South East England.ParticipantsSix hundred and fifty-one patients treated for SARS-CoV-2 between March and September 2020 were included in this analysis. Ethical approval was obtained from the HRA Specific Review Board (REC 20/HRA/2986) for waiver of informed consent.ResultsThe majority of patients presented within 1 week of symptom onset. The lowest risk patients had low mortality (1/45, 2%), and most were discharged within 1 week after admission (30/45, 67%). The highest risk patients, as determined by the 4C mortality score predictor, had high mortality (27/29, 93%), with most dying within 1 week after admission (22/29, 76%). Consistent with previous reports, most patients presented with high levels of C reactive protein (CRP) (67% of patients >50 mg/L), D-dimer (98%>upper limit of normal (ULN)), ferritin (65%>ULN), lactate dehydrogenase (90%>ULN) and low lymphocyte counts (81%ConclusionsSerial measurement of routine blood tests may be a useful prognostic tool for monitoring treatment response in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Changes in other biochemical parameters often included in a ‘COVID-19 bundle’ did not show significant association with outcome, suggesting there may be limited clinical benefit of serial sampling. This may have direct clinical utility in the context of escalating healthcare costs of the pandemic.

International audience; Simple Summary There have been huge improvements in both vaccination and the management of COVID-19 in patients with cancer. In addition, different variants may be associated with different presentations. Therefore, we examined whether indicators of the severity of COVID-19 in patients with cancer who present to hospital varied during different waves of the pandemic and we showed that these indicators remained predictive. We validated that the COVID-19 Risk in Oncology Evaluation Tool (CORONET), which predicts the severity of COVID-19 in cancer patients presenting to hospital, performed well in all waves. In addition, we examined patient outcomes and the factors that influence them and found that there was increased vaccination uptake and steroid use for patients requiring oxygen in later waves, which may be associated with improvements in outcome. Patients with cancer have been shown to have increased risk of COVID-19 severity. We previously built and validated the COVID-19 Risk in Oncology Evaluation Tool (CORONET) to predict the likely severity of COVID-19 in patients with active cancer who present to hospital. We assessed the differences in presentation and outcomes of patients with cancer and COVID-19, depending on the wave of the pandemic. We examined differences in features at presentation and outcomes in patients worldwide, depending on the waves of the pandemic: wave 1 D614G (n = 1430), wave 2 Alpha (n = 475), and wave 4 Omicron variant (n = 63, UK and Spain only). The performance of CORONET was evaluated on 258, 48, and 54 patients for each wave, respectively. We found that mortality rates were reduced in subsequent waves. The majority of patients were vaccinated in wave 4, and 94% were treated with steroids if they required oxygen. The stages of cancer and the median ages of patients significantly differed, but features associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes remained predictive and did not differ between waves. The CORONET tool performed well in all waves, with scores in an area under the curve (AUC) of >0.72. We concluded that patients with cancer who present to hospital with COVID-19 have similar features of severity, which remain discriminatory despite differences in variants and vaccination status. Survival improved following the first wave of the pandemic, which may be associated with vaccination and the increased steroid use in those patients requiring oxygen. The CORONET model demonstrated good performance, independent of the SARS-CoV-2 variants.

OBJECTIVES: Dexamethasone has now been incorporated into the standard of care for COVID-19 hospital patients. However, larger intensive care unit studies have failed to show discernible improvements in mortality in the recent wave. We aimed to investigate the impacts of these factors on disease outcomes in a UK hospital study.METHODS: This retrospective observational study reports patient characteristics, interventions and outcomes in COVID-19 patients from a UK teaching hospital; cohort 1, pre 16th June-2020 (pre-dexamethasone); cohort 2, 17th June to 30th November-2020 (post-dexamethasone, pre-VOC 202,012/01 as dominant strain); cohort 3, 1st December-2020 to 3rd March-2021 (during establishment of VOC202012/01 as the dominant strain).RESULTS: Dexamethasone treatment was more common in cohorts 2 and 3 (42.7% and 51.6%) compared with cohort 1 (2.5%). After adjusting for risk, odds of death within 28 days were 2-fold lower in cohort 2 vs 1 (OR:0.47,[0.27,0.79],p = 0.006). Mortality was higher cohort 3 vs 2 (20% vs 14%); but not significantly different to cohort 1 (OR: 0.86,[0.64, 1.15],p = 0.308).CONCLUSIONS: The real world finding of lower mortality following dexamethasone supports the published trial evidence and highlights ongoing need for research with introduction of new treatments and ongoing concern over new COVID-19 variants.

Background Cancer patients are at increased risk of death from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Cancer and its treatment affect many haematological and biochemical parameters, therefore we analysed these prior to and during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and correlated them with outcome. Patients and methods Consecutive patients with cancer testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 in centres throughout the United Kingdom were identified and entered into a database following local governance approval. Clinical and longitudinal laboratory data were extracted from patient records. Data were analysed using Mann–Whitney U test, Fisher's exact test, Wilcoxon signed rank test, logistic regression, or linear regression for outcomes. Hierarchical clustering of heatmaps was performed using Ward's method. Results In total, 302 patients were included in three cohorts: Manchester (n = 67), Liverpool (n = 62), and UK (n = 173). In the entire cohort (N = 302), median age was 69 (range 19-93 years), including 163 males and 139 females; of these, 216 were diagnosed with a solid tumour and 86 with a haematological cancer. Preinfection lymphopaenia, neutropaenia and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) were not associated with oxygen requirement (O2) or death. Lymphocyte count (P < 0.001), platelet count (P = 0.03), LDH (P < 0.0001) and albumin (P < 0.0001) significantly changed from preinfection to during infection. High rather than low neutrophils at day 0 (P = 0.007), higher maximal neutrophils during COVID-19 (P = 0.026) and higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR; P = 0.01) were associated with death. In multivariable analysis, age (P = 0.002), haematological cancer (P = 0.034), C-reactive protein (P = 0.004), NLR (P = 0.036) and albumin (P = 0.02) at day 0 were significant predictors of death. In the Manchester/Liverpool cohort 30 patients have restarted therapy following COVID-19, with no additional complications requiring readmission. Conclusion Preinfection biochemical/haematological parameters were not associated with worse outcome in cancer patients. Restarting treatment following COVID-19 was not associated with additional complications. Neutropaenia due to cancer/treatment is not associated with COVID-19 mortality. Cancer therapy, particularly in patients with solid tumours, need not be delayed or omitted due to concerns that treatment itself increases COVID-19 severity., Highlights • Pre-infection haematological/biochemical characteristics are not associated with COVID-19 severity. • Significant haematological/biochemical changes occur upon infection with heterogeneity in response observed. • High not low neutrophils were associated with oxygen requirement and COVID-19 mortality – GCSF should be used with caution. Age, haematological cancer, high neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio, CRP and low albumin were significant predictors of death in multivariable analysis. No significant complications requiring readmission were seen upon restart of cancer therapy following diagnosis of COVID-19.

Background: Patients with cancer are at increased risk of severe COVID-19, but have heterogeneous presentations and outcomes. Decision-making tools for hospital admission, severity prediction and increased monitoring for early intervention are critical. We sought to identify features of COVID-19 in cancer patients predicting severe disease and build a decision-support online tool; COVID-19 Risk in Oncology Evaluation Tool (CORONET). Methods: Patients with active cancer (stage I-IV) and laboratory confirmed COVID-19 presenting to hospitals worldwide were included. Discharge (within 24hrs), admission (≥24hrs inpatient), oxygen requirement (O2) and death were combined in a 0-3 point severity scale. Association of features with outcome were investigated using Lasso regression and Random Forest (RF) combined with SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). RF was further validated in 4 cohorts, split by geography. The CORONET model was then examined in the entire cohort to build an online CORONET decision-support tool. Admission and severe disease thresholds were established through pragmatically defined cost functions. Findings: The dataset comprised 920 patients; median age 70 (range 5-99), 56% males, 44% females, 81% solid vs. 19% haematological cancers. In derivation, RF demonstrated superior performance over Lasso with lower mean squared error (0.801 vs. 0.807) and was selected for development. During validation, RF achieved mean AUROC 0.77, 0.80 and 0.75 for prediction of admission, O 2 and death, respectively. Using the entire cohort, CORONET cut-offs for admission and mortality of 1.0 and 2.3 were established. The CORONET decision support tool recommended admission for 95% of patients eventually requiring oxygen and 97% of those who died. SHAP explanations revealed National-Early-Warning-Score-2, C-reactive protein and albumin were the most important features contributing to COVID-19 severity prediction in patients with cancer at time of hospital presentation. Interpretation: CORONET, a decision-support tool validated in healthcare systems worldwide can aid admission decisions and predict COVID-19 severity in patients with cancer. Funding Information: R. Lee and T. Robinson and J. Weaver are supported by the National Institute for Health Research as Clinical Lecturers. T. Bhogal is supported by the National Institute for Health Research as an academic clinical fellow. U. Khan is an MRC Clinical Training Fellow based at the University of Liverpool supported by the North West England Medical Research Council Fellowship Scheme in Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, which is funded by the Medical Research Council (Award Ref. MR/N025989/1). The Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre for providing infrastructure support (Grant Reference: C18616/A25153) and The Clatterbridge Cancer charity (North West Cancer Research). C. Dive is funded by CRUK Core funding to Manchester Institute (C5757/A27412) and is supported by the CRUK Manchester Centre Award (C5759/A25254), and by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. C. Zhou is funded by the CRUK Manchester Centre Award (C5759/A25254), J. Stevenson and P. Fitzpatrick are funded by the CRUK Accelerator Award (29374). This research was funded in part, by the Wellcome Trust [205228/Z/16/Z]. LT is also supported by the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections (NIHR200907) at University of Liverpool in partnership with Public Health England (PHE), in collaboration with Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and the University of Oxford. LT is based at University of Liverpool. MS is supported by a grant from the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation for the state support for the creation and development of World Class Research Centers "Digital biodesign and personalized healthcare” N.075-15-2020-926. Declaration of Interests: R Lee research funding (institution) BMS and speaker fees Astrazeneca. A. Croitoru Consulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, Merck, Roche, Bayer, Novartis, Ipsen, Research Funding me and my hospital: Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Canfite, NanoCarrier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Amgen, Servier, Five Prime Therapeutics, Travel Accommodations: Pfizer, Genekor, and oz, Merck, Pfizer, Servier, Roche. O. Michielin reports personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from NeraCare GmbH, outside the submitted work. E. Romano institutional research grants from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb. G. Pentheroudakis advisory board for Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Roche, Abbvie, institutional research grants from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Debbio, Enorasis, Genekor, Ipsen, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Servier. Solange Peters reports consultation/advisory role: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, Biocartis, Bio Invent, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly, Elsevier, F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech, Foundation Medicine, Illumina, Incyte, IQVIA, Janssen, Medscape, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Mirati, Novartis, Pharma Mar, Phosplatin Therapeutics, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, Vaccibody, talk in a company’s organized public event: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, e-cancer, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech, Illumina, Medscape, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, PER, Pfizer, Prime, RTP, Sanofi, Takeda, receipt of grants/research supports: (Sub)investigator in trials (institutional financial support for clinical trials) sponsored by Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biodesix, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech, GSK, Illumina, Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Mirati, Novartis, and Pfizer, Phosplatin Therapeutics. M Rowe honoraria from Astellas Pharma, speaker fees MSD and Servier. C. Wilson consultancy and speaker fees Pfizer, Amgen, Novartis, A Armstrong conference fee Merck, spouse shares in Astrazeneca. T Robinson financial support to attend educational workshops from Amgen and Daiichi-Sankyo. C Dive, outside of this scope of work, has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Bioven, Amgen, Carrick Therapeutics, Merck AG, Taiho Oncology, Clearbridge Biomedics, Angle PLC, Menarini Diagnostics, GSK, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, BMS, Novartis, Celgene, Thermofisher. C Dive is on advisory boards for, and has received consultancy fees/honoraria from, AstraZeneca, Biocartis and Merck KGaA. No other authors have nothing to declare. Ethics Approval Statement: Approval (reference 20/WA/0269) was granted from the UK Research Ethics Committee for the study. Information regarding governance/regulatory approvals for each international cohort are available in the Supp. Methods.

BackgroundCancer patients are at increased risk of severe COVID-19. As COVID-19 presentation and outcomes are heterogeneous in cancer patients, decision-making tools for hospital admission, severity prediction and increased monitoring for early intervention are critical.ObjectiveTo identify features of COVID-19 in cancer patients predicting severe disease and build a decision-support online tool; COVID-19 Risk in Oncology Evaluation Tool (CORONET)MethodData was obtained for consecutive patients with active cancer with laboratory confirmed COVID-19 presenting in 12 hospitals throughout the United Kingdom (UK). Univariable logistic regression was performed on pre-specified features to assess their association with admission (≥24 hours inpatient), oxygen requirement and death. Multivariable logistic regression and random forest models (RFM) were compared with patients randomly split into training and validation sets. Cost function determined cut-offs were defined for admission/death using RFM. Performance was assessed by sensitivity, specificity and Brier scores (BS). The CORONET model was then assessed in the entire cohort to build the online CORONET tool.ResultsTraining and validation sets comprised 234 and 66 patients respectively with median age 69 (range 19-93), 54% males, 46% females, 71% vs 29% had solid and haematological cancers. The RFM, selected for further development, demonstrated superior performance over logistic regression with AUROC predicting admission (0.85 vs. 0.78) and death (0.76 vs. 0.72). C-reactive protein was the most important feature predicting COVID-19 severity. CORONET cut-offs for admission and mortality of 1.05 and 1.8 were established. In the training set, admission prediction sensitivity and specificity were 94.5% and 44.3% with BS 0.118; mortality sensitivity and specificity were 78.5% and 57.2% with BS 0.364. In the validation set, admission sensitivity and specificity were 90.7% and 42.9% with BS 0.148; mortality sensitivity and specificity were 92.3% and 45.8% with BS 0.442. In the entire cohort, the CORONET decision support tool recommended admission of 99% of patients requiring oxygen and of 99% of patients who died.Conclusions and RelevanceCORONET, a decision support tool validated in hospitals throughout the UK showed promise in aiding decisions regarding admission and predicting COVID-19 severity in patients with cancer presenting to hospital. Future work will validate and refine the tool in further datasets.

Cold-formed thin-walled sections are prone to local buckling caused by residual stresses, geometrical imperfections and inconsistency of material properties. We present a real case of buckling failure and conduct a numerical and experimental study aimed to identify methods capable of predicting such failures. It is important because designers of structures are getting more FEA-oriented and tend to avoid lengthy procedures of cold-formed structures design. Currently adopted methods are complicated and require patience and caution from a designer which is reasonable in case of the most important structural members but not necessarily so in ordinary design. Since it is important, we offer an insight into several FEA and manual methods which were sufficient to predict the failure while remaining fairly simple. Using a non-uniform partial safety factor was still necessary. We hope that this paper will be of interest for people performing a lot of routine analyses and worrying about reliability of their computations.

In this paper a method of efficiency evaluation of work-ing cycle of Refuse Collection Vehicle is presented. Using real world data, two representative working cycles were analyzed. Total cycle efficiency was calculated, as well as the efficiency of particular cycle phases. Then, energy needed to collect, energy needed to compact the waste and energy from fuel were compared. Measured and calculated values vs time were shown on the diagrams illustrating hydraulic system parameters and the real load applied to the chassis combustion engine.

The paper presents an analysis of the possibility of determining the general characteristics using the operational data of an engine of refuse collection vehicle. Data acquisition was done by reading information from the CAN network using FMS standard (Fleet Management System), which is widely used in heavy duty vehicles since year 2002. The paper presents the analysis of the expected measurement uncertainties resulting from the standard PN_ISO 15550-2009. The experimental data were filtered due to the established constraints that define the static states of the engine. On the basis of the obtained measurement data, corresponding to various defined static states, the general characteristics of the engine were made and discussed.

The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link. In this paper an artificial neural network (ANN) approach to modelling fuel consumption of heavy duty vehicles is presented. The proposed method uses easy accessible data collected via CAN bus of the truck. As a benchmark a conventional method, which is based on polynomial regression model, is used. The fuel consumption is measured in two different tests, performed by using a unique test bench to apply the load to the engine. Firstly, a transient state test was performed, in order to evaluate the polynomial regression and 25 ANN models with different parameters. Based on the results, the best ANN model was chosen. Then, validation test was conducted using real duty cycle loads for model comparison. The neural network model outperformed the conventional method and represents fuel consumption of the engine operating in transient states significantly better. The presented method can be applied in order to reduce fuel consumption in utility vehicles delivering accurate fuel economy model of truck engines, in particular in low engine speed and torque range.

One of the ways to improve the fuel economy of heavy duty trucks is to operate the combustion engine in its most efficient operating points. To do that, a mathematical model of the engine is required, which shows the relations between engine speed, torque and fuel consumption in transient states. In this paper, easy accessible exploitation data collected via CAN bus of the heavy duty truck were used to obtain a model of a diesel engine. Various polynomial regression, K-Nearest Neighbor and Artificial Neural Network models were evaluated, and based on RMSE the most relevant sets of parameters for the given algorithm were selected. Finally, the models were compared by using RMSE and Absolute Relative Error scores for 5 test samples. These represent the whole engine’s operating area. Apart from goodness of fit, the models were analyzed in terms of sensitivity to the size of the training samples. ANN and KNN proved to be accurate algorithms for modeling fuel consumption by using exploitation data. The ANN model was ranked best, as it required less observations to be trained in order to achieve an absolute relative error which was lower than 5%. A conventional method, i.e. polynomial regression, performed significantly worse than either the ANN or the KNN models. The approach presented in this study shows the potential for using easy accessible exploitation data to modeling fuel consumption of heavy duty trucks. This leads to the reduction of fuel consumption having a clear positive impact on the environment.

1505 Background: Patients (pts) with cancer are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 infection and death. Due to COVID-19 outcome heterogeneity, accurate assessment of pts is crucial. Early identification of pts who are likely to deteriorate allows timely discussions regarding escalation of care. Likewise, safe home management will reduce risk of nosocomial infection. To aid clinical decision-making, we developed a model to help determine which pts should be admitted vs. managed as an outpatient and which pts are likely to have severe COVID-19. Methods: Pts with active solid or haematological cancer presenting with symptoms/asymptomatic and testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 in Europe and USA were identified following institutional board approval. Clinical and laboratory data were extracted from pt records. Clinical outcome measures were discharge within 24 hours, requirement for oxygen at any stage during admission and death. Random Forest (RF) algorithm was used for model derivation as it compared favourably vs. lasso regression. Relevant clinical features were identified using recursive feature elimination based on SHAP. Internal validation (bootstrapping) with multiple imputations for missing data (maximum ≤2) were used for performance evaluation. Cost function determined cut-offs were defined for admission/death. The final CORONET model was trained on the entire cohort. Results: Model derivation set comprised 672 pts (393 male, 279 female, median age 71). 83% had solid cancers, 17% haematological. Predictive features were selected based on clinical relevance and data availability, supported by recursive feature elimination based on SHAP. RF model using haematological cancer, solid cancer stage, no of comorbidities, National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2), neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio, platelets, CRP and albumin achieved AUROC for admission 0.79 (+/-0.03) and death 0.75 (+/-0.02). RF explanation using SHAP revealed NEWS2 and C-reactive protein as the most important features predicting COVID-19 severity. In the entire cohort, CORONET recommended admission of 96% of patients requiring oxygen and 99% of patients who died. We then built a decision support tool using the model, which aids clinical decisions by presenting model predictions and explaining key contributing features. Conclusions: We have developed a model and tool available at https://coronet.manchester.ac.uk/ to predict which pts with cancer and COVID-19 require hospital admission and are likely to have a severe disease course. CORONET is being continuously refined and validated over time.

In machine industry, stresses are often calculated using simple linear FEM analysis. Occasional failures of elements designed in such a way require recomputation by means of more sophisticated methods, eg. including plasticity and non-linear effects. It usually leads to investigation of failure causes and improvement of an element in order to prevent its unwanted behavior in the future. The study presents the case where both linear and non-linear analyses show some load capacity reserve and do not justify failure occurring in reality. Some non-standard causes are pointed out, including residual stress of a leading role.