
Citation: Antonino Marvuglia, Tomás Navarrete Gutiérrez, Paul Baustert, Enrico Benetto. Implementation of Agent-Based Models to support Life Cycle Assessment: A review focusing on agriculture and land use[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2018, 3(4): 535-560. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2018.4.535
[1] | Mario Coccia, Igor Benati . Negative effects of high public debt on health systems facing pandemic crisis: Lessons from COVID-19 in Europe to prepare for future emergencies. AIMS Public Health, 2024, 11(2): 477-498. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2024024 |
[2] | Malik Sallam, Kholoud Al-Mahzoum, Lujain Alkandari, Aisha Shabakouh, Asmaa Shabakouh, Abiar Ali, Fajer Alenezi, Muna Barakat . Descriptive analysis of TikTok content on vaccination in Arabic. AIMS Public Health, 2025, 12(1): 137-161. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2025010 |
[3] | Abdulqadir J. Nashwan, Rejo G. Mathew, Reni Anil, Nabeel F. Allobaney, Sindhumole Krishnan Nair, Ahmed S. Mohamed, Ahmad A. Abujaber, Abbas Balouchi, Evangelos C. Fradelos . The safety, health, and well-being of healthcare workers during COVID-19: A scoping review. AIMS Public Health, 2023, 10(3): 593-609. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2023042 |
[4] | Jennifer L Lemacks, Laurie S Abbott, Cali Navarro, Stephanie McCoy, Tammy Greer, Sermin Aras, Michael B Madson, Jacqueline Reese-Smith, Chelsey Lawrick, June Gipson, Byron K Buck, Marcus Johnson . Passive recruitment reach of a lifestyle management program to address obesity in the deep south during the COVID-19 pandemic. AIMS Public Health, 2023, 10(1): 116-128. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2023010 |
[5] | Carlee Bellapigna, Zornitsa Kalibatseva . Psychosocial risk factors associated with social anxiety, depressive and disordered eating symptoms during COVID-19. AIMS Public Health, 2023, 10(1): 18-34. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2023003 |
[6] | Yosef Mohamed-Azzam Zakout, Fayez Saud Alreshidi, Ruba Mustafa Elsaid, Hussain Gadelkarim Ahmed . The magnitude of COVID-19 related stress, anxiety and depression associated with intense mass media coverage in Saudi Arabia. AIMS Public Health, 2020, 7(3): 664-678. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2020052 |
[7] | Srikanth Umakanthan, Anuradha Chauhan, Madan Mohan Gupta, Pradeep Kumar Sahu, Maryann M Bukelo, Vijay Kumar Chattu . COVID-19 pandemic containment in the Caribbean Region: A review of case-management and public health strategies. AIMS Public Health, 2021, 8(4): 665-681. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2021053 |
[8] | Pamila Sadeeka Adikari, KGRV Pathirathna, WKWS Kumarawansa, PD Koggalage . Role of MOH as a grassroots public health manager in preparedness and response for COVID-19 pandemic in Sri Lanka. AIMS Public Health, 2020, 7(3): 606-619. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2020048 |
[9] | José Miguel Uribe-Restrepo, Alan Waich-Cohen, Laura Ospina-Pinillos, Arturo Marroquín Rivera, Sergio Castro-Díaz, Juan Agustín Patiño-Trejos, Martín Alonso Rondón Sepúlveda, Karen Ariza-Salazar, Luisa Fernanda Cardona-Porras, Carlos Gómez-Restrepo, Francisco Diez-Canseco . Mental health and psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and social distancing measures among young adults in Bogotá, Colombia. AIMS Public Health, 2022, 9(4): 630-643. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2022044 |
[10] | Vasiliki Georgousopoulou, Panagiota Pervanidou, Pantelis Perdikaris, Efrosyni Vlachioti, Vaia Zagana, Georgios Kourtis, Ioanna Pavlopoulou, Vasiliki Matziou . Covid-19 pandemic? Mental health implications among nurses and Proposed interventions. AIMS Public Health, 2024, 11(1): 273-293. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2024014 |
Understanding the factors that increase the risk of disease, death, and health disparities requires the collection of data that is sex-disaggregated. Recent studies suggest that men diagnosed with the 2019 new coronavirus disease (COVID-19) had a more severe illness and a greater fatality rate than women [1]–[3]. For instance, the majority of the 84 nations analyzed for COVID-19 mortality by sex showed greater case fatality ratios (CFR) in males, with the Netherlands having one of the uppermost CFRs for men to women within the first year [4]. Older age appears to be the biggest risk factor for dying from COVID-19. Additionally, some co-existing conditions, primarily obesity, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and diabetes, have been linked to serious illness outcomes [5],[6]. Results point to a varied impact of COVID-19 on outcomes in males compared to women; however, more research is needed.
It is unclear if these sex differences are related to men's generally worse health and shorter life span as compared to women their age, or if men have a specific COVID-19 disadvantage. It is crucial to perform a sex-disaggregated analysis of COVID-19 because it facilitates risk stratification that enables sex-specific management and treatments for patients. In this study, we present a detailed description outlining the disparities in COVID-19 mortality between males and females during the first and second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States to gain a further understanding of temporal trends in these discrepancies. Our aim is to explore the sex-differences in COVID-19 using a large US-based cohort. More specifically, the objectives are as follows: 1) to assess the trend in mortality rates of COVID-19 patients by time and sex in a large US-based cohort; 2) to study the sex-ratio variation in mortality cases over time; and 3) to determine sex-differences in mortality by age groups. Sex-disaggregated research is important to understand the risk factors of poor outcomes and health inequities, as well as to guide COVID-19 management.
This retrospective cohort study aims to assess the mortality trend associated with COVID-19 across time and gender within a large cohort based in the United States and Canada. The study population includes data on the mortality rates of male and female patients with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2022 (ICD-10 code: U07.1.), which are accessible through the COVID-19 Research Database consortium (https://covid19researchdatabase.org).
The COVID-19 Research Database was initiated following approval from institutional review boards, patient advocacy groups, and ethics committees (https://covid19researchdatabase.org/). Patient consent was exempted due to the use of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) de-identified data, HIPAA limited data, or non-HIPAA covered data, supported by strong governance protocols regulating data access. This exemption includes all research conducted within the COVID-19 Research Database. For further information on ethics and research intent, please refer to the COVID-19 Research Database Statement of Ethics and Intent available at https://covid19researchdatabase.org/statement-of-ethics/.
Datavant, which is a company that enhances the Social Security Administration death master files by incorporating information from newspapers, funeral homes, and memorials to establish a comprehensive database at the individual level, encompassing over 80% of annual deaths in the United States, provided detailed mortality statistics between 2020 to 2022. We extracted and analyzed the mortality data for patients with available electronic health records (EHR) from 2020 to 2022. Then, among these, we retrieved the demographic information and outcomes for approximately 4 million patients with a test-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19.
Datavant's Death Index includes information on deceased individuals in the United States and Canada. The data sources of the death index dataset include the government, private obituaries, and private claims sources. Datavant's Death Index combines death records sourced from the NTIS Social Security Administration's Death Master File (referred to as “SSA”), as well as third party data from public and private obituaries (referred to as “Obit” data) from 2010 onward. About 99.6% of the data pertains to deaths in the United States, and the rest are from Canada. For each record, the data indicate the date of death, the date of birth, and the gender of the deceased.
Mortality cases for males and females were presented over a three-year period during the COVID-19 pandemic from 2020 to 2022. We analyzed sex-based differences in mortality cases with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19. Sex ratios presenting the change of mortality cases over time was also computed as the number of diagnosed male patients over female patients. Sex-differences in the mortality rates were illustrated by age groups.
Figure 1 shows the mortality cases between 2020 and 2022. In 2020, the death cases increased up to 200,000 cases using a large US-based Cohort study. In 2021, the death cases decreased compared to the previous year and fluctuated between 200,000 cases and 160,000 cases. In 2022, the mortality cases abruptly decreased from 160,000 cases to less than 50,000 cases.
More specifically, the COVID-19 mortality cases fluctuated between 2020 and 2022. COVID-19 cases and deaths initially peaked in April and May 2020 (146,239 and 130,918 respectively); however, after a brief reduction in the June deaths (120,148 cases), the death cases began to rise again, reached a second peak during July 2020 (129,593 cases), declined in August (112,650), and returned to climb again from September (117,796) to October (126,181). The lowest number of deaths occurred in February (116,792), August (112,650), and September (117,796). Furthermore, the number of COVID-19 cases increased suddenly to reach 144,640 in November 2020. The number of cases gradually increased to reach a third peak on December 1, 2020.
In 2021, the number of death cases reached its highest record over the period 2020–2022, reaching 199,761 cases on January 1, 2021 (Winter 2021, wave 2). The frequency of deaths steeply decreased afterwards during Spring–Summer 2021 to reach 109,695 cases in June 2021. After that, the number of cases slightly increased to reach the second peak with 148,658 cases in August 2021 (Summer 2021). Moreover, the death cases remained stable during August and September 2021. This was followed by a sharp decrease in deaths to reach 126,648 cases in November 2021. Finally, the number of death cases suddenly increased from November to December 2021 to reach 138,546 cases.
Alternatively, in 2022, the number of deaths increased between December 2021 and January 2022, reaching 166,974 cases. There was modest decline in the mortality rates in February 2022 to 120,483, and somehow remained stable and controlled until October. Then, the frequency of COVID-19 deaths significantly decreased, reaching the lowest death record with 45,371 deaths in October 30. However, in November 2022, the mortality rates increased again to the lowest record over the years (79,812 in December 2022).
In terms of sex disparities in COVID-19 deaths over time, no significant differences were observed between men and women by pandemic month in our study (p = 0.06) (Figure 1). Figure 2 shows the sex ratios of the mortality cases over time. The proportion of COVID-19 cases in males and females remained stable during the pandemic (Figure 2); however, the number of diagnosed male patients markedly increased during January (1.006), February (1.0048), and April 2022 (1.005). Then, the number of diagnosed females was equal to the number of diagnosed males by the end of 2022.
Results from our cohort showed that the number of death cases increased by the age group (Figure 3). Older adults had the highest number of deaths during 2020–2022. For instance, a higher number of deaths existed among adults aged 40 to 60 years (315,048) compared to that of adults aged 19–39 years (125,949). COVID-19 death rates were higher for men compared to women for all age groups: 19–39 (63,065 females, 62,884 males), 40–60 (157,734 males, 157,314 females), and 60 and over (1,973,347 males, 1,969,921 females). No sex-dependent statistical differences were observed for the number of COVID-19 deaths across age groups (p = 0.952).
To finally emphasize the significance of our study, Table 1 compiles and synthesizes findings from other studies across various areas.
Authors/date | Aim of study/paper | Type of study/information | Main findings/conclusions |
Islam N, Jdanov DA (2023) [7] | To examine how mortality estimates from England and Wales, Spain, and Italy were influenced by population age and sex | Cross-sectional study | • The greatest predictor of death is age, which is also linked to multimorbidity, which affects mortality in and of itself. • Another important element is sex. Because women typically live longer than men do in most nations, women are overrepresented in older age groups. For instance, the ratio of women to men aged 65 or over was 54:46 in England and Wales in 2020. • Women in Spain, not Italy, had the lowest age-standardized mortality, whereas English women continued to have the worst. |
Danielsen AC, Lee KM, Boulicault M, et al. (2022) [8] | To study sex disparities in COVID-19 cases and mortalities across U.S. states, derived from the unique 13-month dataset of the U.S. Gender/Sex COVID-19 Data Tracker. | Longitudinal study | • The findings show that the gender gap in COVID-19 cases and deaths varies significantly over time and between states. • According to these statistics, there appears to be a small sex discrepancy when it does exist, and it probably fluctuates depending on context-sensitive factors including occupation, race/ethnicity, health practices, and other indicators of social experience. |
Grande E, Fedeli U, Pappagallo M, et al. (2022) [9] | To investigate cause-specific mortality in Italy from March 2020 to April 2020 and the variation in mortality rates compared with those in 2015–2019 regarding sex, age, and epidemic area. | Cross-sectional study | • Results reveal impact of Covid-19 pandemic on cause-specific mortality from March 2020 to April 2020, including age, gender, and territorial differences. An excess of deaths for influenza and pneumonia in the months of March and April was observed in the US. Air pollution might explain the observed geographical pattern of the increase in mortality for COVID-19 in Italy. In the younger age groups, especially in males, there was an excess in mortality from pneumonia and other respiratory diseases, suggesting an underestimation of COVID-19 cases. |
Kharroubi SA, Diab-El-Harake M (2022) [10] | To investigate potential sex differences in lifestyle factors and clinical comorbidities among diagnosed patients, as well as the socioeconomic features of COVID-19 male and female patients. | Retrospective cohort study | • Significant sex-dependent differences were found in the COVID-19 risk variables and illness comorbidities using a sizable US population. After controlling for important factors including age, education, and ethnicity, male patients in particular had a high frequency of underlying comorbidities, such as abnormal clinical and lab results, hypertensive disorders, and diabetes. • This study suggests that comprehending the disparities in patient outcomes across male and female cohorts would facilitate the development of a gender equity responsive strategy for the COVID-19 pandemic and augment the efficacy of medical practice, legislation, and interventions. |
Yoshida Y, Chu S, Fox S, et al. (2022) [11] | To examine the association of comorbidities, inflammatory biomarkers, and severe outcomes in men and women hospitalized for COVID-19. | A retrospective cohort analysis | • Inpatient mortality varies by gender and is correlated with comorbidities and biomarkers. Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, the four most common fatal comorbidities were moderate to severe liver disease, renal disease, metastatic solid tumor, and myocardial infarction. These four coexisting conditions continued to be the most deadly in both sexes, with women at a larger risk than males. Procalcitonin and NT proBNP were the best predictors of mortality, with abnormal increases of CRP, ferritin, procalcitonin, NT proBNP, neutrophil and platelet counts, and lymphocytopenia strongly linked to the risk of death. |
Péterfi A, Mészáros Á, Szarvas Z, et al. (2022) [12] | A systematic search on PubMed for articles published between 2019 and 2021 to identify any cohort and case-control studies that investigated the relationship of comorbidities and COVID-19 mortality among the elderly, defined as 60 years of age and above. | Systematic review | • According to the included studies, there is a correlation between higher mortality rates in populations of elderly and the prevalence of specific disorders as diabetes, cancer, respiratory, kidney, cardiovascular, and nervous system diseases. Possible mechanisms include SARS-CoV-2 virus attacks endothelial cells, causing damage to tiny arteries and encouraging microvascular dysfunction, inflammation, and thrombosis. As a condition worsens, the link between comorbidities and COVID-19 mortality in the elderly may alter, with stronger observed effect sizes as the disease advances. |
Dorrucci M, Minelli G, Boros S, et al. (2021) [13] | To compare all-cause excess mortality between the two waves that occurred during the year 2020 using nationwide data. | Cross-sectional study | • Similar to other European countries, the COVID-19 pandemic scenario in Italy can be summed up in three phases: a first wave that began at the end of February and ended at the end of May, marked by a sharp increase in cases and deaths as well as a high territorial concentration, primarily in the north of the country; a transitional phase that began in June and ended in mid-September, with low viral diffusion; and a second wave that began at the end of September 2020 and continued until the first half of November before the cases again declined. Men presented a higher mortality risk than women during the second wave, even though not significantly. The highest contribution to excess mortality during the whole period covered by this study was observed among people aged 80 years and older, with a further increase during the second wave. |
Mahmoud M, Carmisciano L, Tagliafico L, et al. (2021) [14] | To identify the chronic clinical conditions and the comorbidity clusters associated with in-hospital mortality in a cohort of older COVID-19 patients who were admitted to the IRCCS Policlinico San Martino Hospital, Genoa, Italy, between January and April 2020. | This was a retrospective cohort study including 219 consecutive patients aged 70 years or older and is part of the GECOVID-19 study group. | • According to the findings, individuals with dementia and cerebrovascular illness had higher mortality rates connected to COVID-19, and these disorders continued to have an independent relationship with all-cause in-hospital mortality. Specifically, this may be due to a higher likelihood of hospitalization, the requirement for intensive care, and mortality when heart failure, metabolic disorders, stroke, and dementia among patients with these comorbidities. In addition, the inflammatory response may be involved in the worsened clinical course of COVID-19 in older and frail patients. |
Chang WH (2020) [15] | To understand whether women belong to a high-risk group or a group with weak resistance. | Review article | • Women outperform men in terms of illness incidence and fatality. The primary cause is that women's immune systems are stronger than men's, in addition to their own hormonal defenses. In addition, women observe safety precautions more strictly and engage in more protective behavior (such as hand washing), which significantly lowers the risk of infection. |
Griffith DM, Sharma G, Holliday CS, et al. (2020) [16] | To understand the disproportionate death rate among men using a biopsychosocial approach. | Commentary | • Biological factors: Women often develop higher innate and adaptive immunological responses than men because the X chromosome has a high number of immune-related genes. Sex hormones including progesterone, estrogen, and androgens, as well as sex chromosomal genes, contribute to this unequal control of immunological responses in men and women. • Psychosocial and behavioral factors: Men are more likely than women to participate in high-risk activities that increase their chance of getting COVID-19 including higher rates of tobacco use and alcohol consumption. For example, men are less likely than women to have stated that they have been avoiding intimate physical contact with people or big public gatherings. Additionally, men are less likely than women to efficiently seek medical assistance, wear masks, and wash their hands. • Other factors include age and geography. For example, a US study showed that although older men perceived their risks of COVID-19 to be higher than those of younger men, older men made the fewest behavior changes across age and gender groups. • There are variations in occupational risk for men and women. In the United States, a larger number of women are employed as social and healthcare workers. However, men are more likely to be low-skilled or low-paid occupations (e.g., food processing, transportation, delivery, warehousing), which are associated with a greater risk of mortality. |
Scortichini M, Schneider dos Santos R, De'Donato F, et al. (2020) [17] | To analyze the excess mortality across the 107 Italian provinces, stratified by sex, age group and period of the outbreak. | Cross-sectional study | • The impact was slightly higher in men compared with women. The risk varied by age, with the highest excess mortality in the group of people aged 70–79 years old and with a lower but measurable risk evident in those aged <60. The analysis by week reveals varied patterns, with the risk restricted to a shorter time frame (March to mid-April) in Central and Southern Italy, and more delayed affects in women and the elderly. These variations are probably caused by the lockdown rules were implemented and by the contributions of differential risk pathways, which include deaths directly linked to COVID-19 and indirect deaths from other causes including disturbances in the healthcare system. |
Raparelli V, Palmieri L, Canevelli M. (2020) [18] | A sex-stratified analysis to examine variations in the clinical course and presentation between male and female COVID-19 fatality cases in Italy. | Cross-sectional study | • In the current analysis, men and women experienced distinct clinical symptoms and care transitions. Compared to women, men's COVID-19-related mortality was associated with different clinical symptoms and treatment transitions. Even though this elderly cohort had a high overall burden of multimorbidity, males were more likely than women to have IHD, COPD, and CKD, whereas women were more likely to have dementia and autoimmune disorders. Men were more likely than women to experience the clinical symptoms of COVID-19 death, such as fever as a sign of start and the incidence of AKI. |
Sanyaolu A, Okorie C, Marinkovic A, et al. (2020) [19] | To examine the comorbid conditions, the progression of the disease, and mortality rates in patients of all ages, infected with the ongoing COVID-19 disease. | Electronic literature review search | • Patients with COVID-19 disease who have comorbidities, such as hypertension or diabetes mellitus, are more likely to develop a more severe course and progression of the disease. • Older patients, especially those 65 years old and above who have comorbidities and are infected, have an increased admission rate into the intensive care unit (ICU) and mortality from the COVID-19 disease. |
The present study was the first to describe mortality cases over time and to examine reasons for sex- and age-differences in mortality rates among COVID-19 patients. From this large cohort analysis, we confirmed a significant role of sex in COVID-19 mortality. The risk of death may be explained by several factors such as the number of comorbidities, occupation, behavioral factors, etc. These results enable us to identify sex-specific risk factors related to COVID-19. A sex-disaggregated analysis is essential because it allows for risk classification, which allows for sex-specific patient management and treatment.
In the present paper, we assessed the trend in COVID-19 mortality rates by time and sex. In 2020, the mortality cases increased to reach up to 200,000 cases per day and fluctuated due to national health restrictions and social or cultural events in the US. More specifically, on March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared that COVID-19 could be classified as a pandemic due to its concerning levels of transmission and its severity [20]. Shortly thereafter, many states initiated shutdown measures. However, by mid-April, a significant number of states were documenting widespread instances of COVID-19, corresponding to the spike in deaths during the Spring season and the easing of restrictions. On April 13, 2020, countries considered easing restrictions, while others contemplated the implementation of similar measures, particularly those in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, which have lower to middle-income economies. However, in nations with significant impoverished populations such as the United States, the feasibility of adopting stay-at-home orders and other restrictions, as observed in some wealthier nations, might be limited [21]. Later, the months of August and September of 2020 had the fewest fatalities. These were summer months, where there may have been reduced virus exposure due to less virus dissemination. During the summer months in the United States, cities and states either slowed down their reopening plans or reimposed restrictions. Furthermore, the number of cases gradually increased to reach the third peak on December 1st, 2020, which corresponded with Winter break and Christmas holidays in the United States, whereby the number of COVID-19 cases reached 177,233. During the last two months in 2020, the number of death cases increased as people engaged in risky Christmas and New Year holiday gatherings in late 2020.
In 2021, the mortality cases reached the highest peak over the time period (2020–2022), despite the US vaccine rollout due to holiday gatherings [22] during November and December 2021, as well as the spread of a more contagious strain of the virus in the United States and a slower-than-expected rollout of vaccines [23]. Furthermore, deaths were higher due to a delay in the vaccine release due to the spread of a new strain of the virus. Then, President-elect Joe Biden postponed the vaccine's introduction since many experts prioritized the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, since they were estimated to be roughly 95% effective [23].
The death cases decreased during mid-2021 as the vaccination rates increased with a shortage among younger adults and residents of the United States. As vaccination coverage improved due to health and governmental plans and the implementation of compensatory actions, the mortality rate decreased until the end of 2021. Additionally, COVID-19 fell from the first to the seventh greatest cause of mortality in the US due to a sharp increase in the immunization rates. However, in the summer of 2021, cases abruptly increased again. This may have occurred due to low vaccination rates, notably among younger adults and residents of some states; moreover, the federal government fell short of its July 4 deadline for getting approximately 70% of adults vaccinated. Afterwards, the number of deaths were stable for August and September 2021 due to vaccination approval. On August 18, 2021, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) declared plans for Covid-19 vaccine booster shots. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) fully approved the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for all people ages 18+ on August 23, 2021 [21]. As of August 25, 2021, approximately 73% of adults (aged 18 and above) in the US received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine.
The number of deaths gradually decreased in fall 2021 (September–November). Additionally, the drop and mitigation for the COVID-19 cases and deaths during fall 2021 could be related to the increased CDC funding for COVID-19 prevention and control, as well as strengthening the health authorities' recommendations for full vaccination. On September 17, 2021, the Biden Administration invested $2.1 billion through the CDC to provide state, local, and territorial public health departments with the funding they required to fight infectious diseases such as COVID-19, improve laboratory capacities, and prevent infections in healthcare settings. Furthermore, in November 2021, all non-citizens traveling to the U.S. were mandated to be fully vaccinated and provide evidence of their vaccination status in order to board flights bound for the US [24]. In addition, on November 19, 2021, and in accordance to the CDC's robust recommendations, everyone who received a COVID-19 vaccine from either Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer-BioNTech, or Moderna and was 18 years of age or older should were recommended to obtain a booster shot when they were fully immunized. Nevertheless, the number of deaths increased back again to a higher death record in December 2021. This increase may be explained by the more infectious COVID-19 Delta variant, insufficient vaccination rates, and higher COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths [25]. On December 1, 2021, the California and San Francisco Departments of Public Health identified the initial instance of the Omicron variant in the US. According to statistics made public by the CDC, the Omicron variant was roughly 1.6 times more contagious than the Delta variant [24].
In 2022, the mortality cases were stable and decreased due to widespread vaccinations, a rise in natural immunity following the first Omicron surges, and the availability of anti-COVID therapeutic drugs. In the first half of 2022, there was a notable surge in fatalities following a rise in hospitalizations and admissions to intensive care units, driven by the highly transmissible Omicron variant of the virus. Though the surge of the Omicron cases decreased across the country in 2022, hospitalizations and deaths were expected to remain high throughout the month. This was mainly due to a lag in COVID-19 deaths based on new infections and hospitalizations by a few weeks, which explained why fatalities continued to increase even as the number of cases declined, in addition to the critical gaps in the vaccination coverage in the United States [26]. The United States reported approximately 1 million new COVID-19 infections on January 3, 2022, which was the largest daily amount of any nation in the globe. In just one week, the number of COVID-19 patients in hospitals increased by about 50%.
In November 2022, the mortality rates increased again to 79,812 in December 2022. The rise in deaths in the last months of 2022 was primarily due to holiday gatherings. Other concerns included the decreased vaccine immunity and relatively poor booster uptake compared to first wave of vaccinations. Data from 2022 indicates a notable decrease in COVID-19 mortality during the third year of the pandemic compared to the previous two years (p < 0.05). Preliminary figures from Johns Hopkins University revealed over 350,000 COVID-19 fatalities in 2020, surpassing 475,000 in 2021. However, in 2022, the toll decreased to over 267,000 deaths. Despite this decline, COVID-19 remained the third leading cause of death in the United States for the third consecutive year. It is important to note that over the course of the pandemic, the quality of reporting of COVID-19 deaths by healthcare workers and medical professionals improved [27].
Regarding sex-based disparities in COVID-19 mortality across time, our study did not find any significant differences between men and women. However, analyzing gender discrepancies in COVID-19 mortality trends within the United States suggests the roles of various factors. First, mortality patterns exhibited significant temporal and regional variability. Second, social and behavioral factors such as occupation, behavioral habits, and underlying health issues likely contributed to sex-based disparities in COVID-19 mortality [27] (Table 1). For instance, men are more likely to work in industries such as transportation, manufacturing, meatpacking, agriculture, and construction, which have higher exposure and fatality rates to the COVID-19 virus. Men are more likely to endure homelessness and incarceration compared to women, both of which increase their chance of contracting a virus. Women are more likely to report washing their hands, wearing masks, and following social isolation rules compared to men, all of which may reduce their chance of catching the infection. Moreover, women are more likely to receive vaccinations [15],[16],[28]. Similar to this study, a data tracker for COVID-19 cases and deaths in the US revealed that there were no significant disparities in the infection rates between men and women. However, when examining the death rates, which consider the number of deaths among either men or women relative to the total population of each gender, it was frequently observed that men had higher mortality rates compared to women. On the other hand, other studies attributed sex differences to genes, hormones, and immune responses [29]. Similarly, further evidence from Italy found different mortality rates in time depending from external factors such as accidental falls [9], a person's capacity to escape immunity [30], and a different pattern of the Sars-Cov2 diffusion detected during the second wave, both in terms of quantitative and the geographical pattern [13],[17]. Some studies suggest that elevated COVID-19 mortality rates in men may be linked to a heavier burden of comorbidities [21],[22]. However, other research showed that a greater mortality in women was associated with a higher frequency of comorbidities such as moderate/severe liver disease, dementia, metastatic solid tumor, and heart failure [11],[18]. Sex is a critical factor in mortality. In most countries, women tend to have a longer life expectancy compared to men, this leading to a higher proportion of women in older age brackets. In England and Wales in 2020, the ratio of women to men aged 65 or older was 54:46. Moreover, as age increases, male mortality rates consistently exceed female mortality rates. Therefore, age standardization affects the mortality estimates differently for men and women.
The findings of the current study should be interpreted considering the study's limitations. First, the lack of data on confounding factors, such as ethnicity and a patient's co-morbidities and severity [31], is one of the risk factors for COVID-19 mortality. Our study only included a small amount of sociodemographic information, health care access/use, and clinical information due to the unavailability of the data; as a result, our analysis is susceptible to residual confounding. The only available outcome was all-cause mortality. Furthermore, as our study was observational, causal inferences cannot be drawn. In addition, mortality among patients was assumed to be linked to COVID-19 rather than comorbidities from other diseases. Finally, electronic health record (EHR) systems may be susceptible to potential biases in data recording, which could stem from differences in the system functionalities, layout, coding systems, user knowledge, education regarding EHR utilization, and variations in the data extraction tools and processing methods [26]. Despite these restrictions, the extensive EHR data provided enough strength for a sex-stratified study and brought attention to the notable disparities between the sexes in COVID-19 death rates in the United States. Our results highlight the significance of applying COVID-19-specific sex-specific prevention and therapeutic approaches.
Our cohort's findings revealed that the number of mortality cases increased with age with no statistically significant difference. Even though COVID-19 can impact individuals of all ages, older adults were disproportionately affected during the initial year of the pandemic, as indicated by the NCHS data: 81% of the COVID-19 fatalities in 2020 (totaling 282,836) were individuals aged 65 and older. Following heart disease and cancer, COVID-19 was ranked as the third leading cause of death within this age group [27]. Several factors contribute to the heightened vulnerability of older individuals to COVID-19 mortality. The concept of a “pre-existing mortality gap” may help explain the sex disparity observed in COVID-19 fatalities, rather than a specific vulnerability among males to the virus. Prior to the emergence of COVID-19, men exhibited a shorter life expectancy [32], potentially influenced by higher occurrences of specific chronic conditions [33], engagement in riskier behaviors [34], and being employed in more hazardous occupations [35]. In addition, one probable description of the observed increased mortality in older patients could be patient comorbidities [12],[14],[19]. Conditions such as hypertension and obesity are correlated with increased mortality rates from COVID-19 [7]. Furthermore, changes associated with immune senescence might explain the increased vulnerability among older age patients. The immune response to vaccines is influenced by age-related changes within the immune system, biochemical alterations brought on by aging, which are connected to an increased vulnerability to infectious infections, increased inflammatory phenotypes that cause immune dysfunction, age-related cell changes and soluble mediators of both the innate and adaptive immune responses within lymphoid and non-lymphoid peripheral tissues, and a low-grade, sterile, persistent inflammation known as “inflammaging” [36],[37]. Conditions such as hypertension, peripheral artery diseases, cardiovascular diseases, cognitive impairment, diabetes, and obesity are known to correlate with a higher mortality of elderly patients affected by COVID-19 [12].
Our study revealed greater fatality rates in males, indicating that sex may be a factor in severe COVID-19 consequences, such as mortality. Our results underscored the significance of implementing sex-specific preventive or treatment strategies for COVID-19 patients. The demographics of the population should be considered while making treatment decisions, with a focus on the prevalence of those 65 and older in the US population. Furthermore, monitoring the interactions and dynamics of the older population may offer additional suggestions to safeguard the more vulnerable older population. Sex-disaggregated data on COVID-19 infection and case fatality rates are necessary to develop gender-inclusive responses during the pandemic by scholars and policy experts. Sex-disaggregated data is required for the development of gender-equitable solutions for the pandemic. High-quality sex-disaggregated data should cover the population subgroups of all socioeconomic strata. Understanding other social factors linked to COVID-19 mortality will enable the identification of the most vulnerable populations in this pandemic, which will ensure an improved targeting, prevention, and intervention efforts. Assessing sex-disaggregated data is needed to address numerous knowledge gaps such as the immune system, comorbidities, the presumed infection source, and individual behaviors. Such information can contribute to the development of evidence-based guidelines for decision-making aimed at reducing these inequalities in the healthcare system.
The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.
[1] | UN-WCED (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford University Press. |
[2] |
Sala S, Ciuffo B, Nijkamp P (2015) A systemic framework for sustainability assessment. Ecol Econ 119: 314–325. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.09.015
![]() |
[3] | Wiek A, Ness B, Schweizer-Ries P, et al. (2012) From complex systems analysis to transformational change: A comparative appraisal of sustainability science projects. Sustainability Sci 7: 5–24. |
[4] |
Marvuglia A, Benetto E, Murgante B (2015) Calling for an Integrated Computational Systems Modelling Framework for Life Cycle Sustainability Analysis. J Environ Accounting Manage 3: 213–216. doi: 10.5890/JEAM.2015.09.001
![]() |
[5] | Heijungs R (2010) Ecodesign-carbon footprint-life cycle assessment-life cycle sustainability analysis. A flexible framework for a continuum of tools. Sci J Riga Tech U 4: 42–46. |
[6] |
Guinée JB, Heijungs R, Huppes G, et al. (2011) Life Cycle Assessment: Past, Present, and Future. Environ Sci Technol 45: 90–96. doi: 10.1021/es101316v
![]() |
[7] |
Ponta L, Raberto M, Teglio A, et al. (2018) An Agent-based Stock-flow Consistent Model of the Sustainable Transition in the Energy Sector. Ecol Econ 145: 274–300. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.08.022
![]() |
[8] |
Markard J, Raven R, Truffer B (2012) Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Res Polic 41: 955–967. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.013
![]() |
[9] | The TIR Consulting Group LCC (2016) The 3rd industrial revolution strategy study for the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. Luxembourg. |
[10] | Martin G, Allain S, Bergez JE, et al. (2018) How to Address the Sustainability Transition of Farming Systems? A Conceptual Framework to Organize Research. Sustainability 10: 2083. |
[11] |
Stanitsas M, Kirytopoulos K, Vareilles E (2019) Facilitating sustainability transition through serious games: A systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 208: 924–936. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.157
![]() |
[12] | Mitchell M (2009) Complexity: A Guided Tour. Oxford University Press, New York. |
[13] |
Popa F, Guillermin M, Dedeurwaerdere T (2015) A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: From complex systems theory to reflexive science. Futures 65: 45–56. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2014.02.002
![]() |
[14] |
Hare M, Deadman P (2004) Further towards a taxonomy of agent-based simulation models in environmental management. Math Comput Simulat 64: 25–40. doi: 10.1016/S0378-4754(03)00118-6
![]() |
[15] | Rounsevell MDA, Robinson DT, Murray-Rust D (2011) From actors to agents in socio-ecological systems models. Philos T Roy Soc B 367: 259–269. |
[16] | Heath B, Hill R, Ciarallo F (2009) A Survey of Agent-Based Modeling Practices (January 1998 to July 2008). J Artif Soc Soc Simul 12: 9. |
[17] |
Heckbert S, Baynes T, Reeson A (2010) Agent-based modeling in ecological economics. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1185: 39–53. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05286.x
![]() |
[18] | Teglio A (2011) From Agent-Based models to artificial economies: The Eurace approach for policy design in economics. PhD thesis, Universitat Jaume I. |
[19] |
Gaud N, Galland S, Gechter F, et al. (2008) Holonic multilevel simulation of complex systems: Application to real-time pedestrians simulation in virtual urban environment. Simul Model Pract Theor 16: 1659–1676. doi: 10.1016/j.simpat.2008.08.015
![]() |
[20] | Gilbert N (2008) Agent-Based Models. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles. |
[21] | Grimm V, Railsback SF (2005) Individual-based Modeling and Ecology. Princeton University Press. |
[22] | North MJ, Macal CM (2007) Managing Business Complexity: Discovering Strategic Solutions With Agent-Based Modeling and Simulation. Oxford University Press, Oxford. |
[23] | Ferber J (1999) Multi-agent systems: An introduction to distributed artificial intelligence, 1st edition. Addison-Wesley. |
[24] |
An L (2012) Modeling human decisions in coupled human and natural systems: Review of agent-based models. Ecol Model 229: 25–36. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.07.010
![]() |
[25] |
An L, Zvoleff A, Liu J, et al. (2014) Modeling human decisions in coupled human and natural systems (CHANS): Lessons from a comparative analysis. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 104: 723–745. doi: 10.1080/00045608.2014.910085
![]() |
[26] |
Halog A, Manik Y (2011) Advancing Integrated Systems Modelling Framework for Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment. Sustainability 3: 469–499. doi: 10.3390/su3020469
![]() |
[27] |
Marvuglia A, Benetto E, Rege S, et al. (2013) Modelling approaches for consequential life-cycle assessment (C-LCA) of bioenergy: Critical review and proposed framework for biogas production. Renew Sust Energ Rev 25: 768–781. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2013.04.031
![]() |
[28] |
Tiruta-Barna L, Pigné Y, Navarrete Gutiérrez T, et al. (2016) Framework and computational tool for the consideration of time dependency in Life Cycle Inventory: Proof of concept. J Clean Prod 116: 198–206. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.049
![]() |
[29] |
Davis C, Nikolić I, Dijkema GPJ (2009) Integration of Life Cycle Assessment Into Agent-Based Modeling. J Ind Ecol 13: 306–325. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00122.x
![]() |
[30] |
Baustert P, Benetto E (2017) Uncertainty analysis in agent-based modelling and consequential life cycle assessment coupled models: A critical review. J Clean Prod 156: 378–394. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.193
![]() |
[31] |
Querini F, Benetto E (2014) Agent-based modelling for assessing hybrid and electric cars deployment policies in Luxembourg and Lorraine. Transport Res Part A-Pol 70: 149–161. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2014.10.017
![]() |
[32] |
Querini F, Benetto E (2015) Combining Agent-Based Modeling and Life Cycle Assessment for the Evaluation of Mobility Policies. Environ Sci Technol 49: 1744–1751. doi: 10.1021/es5060868
![]() |
[33] | Page C, Bazile D, Becu N, et al. (2013) Agent-Based Modelling and Simulation Applied to Environmental Management, In: Edmonds B, Meyer R (eds.), Simulating Social Complexity, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 499–540. |
[34] | Clift R, Doig A, Finnveden G (2000) The Application of Life Cycle Assessment to Integrated Solid Waste Management: Part I-Methodology. Trans Inst Chem Eng 78: 279–289. |
[35] |
Shimako AH, Tiruta-Barna L, Pigné Y, et al. (2016) Environmental assessment of bioenergy production from microalgae based systems. J Clean Prod 139: 51–60. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.003
![]() |
[36] | Heijungs R, Suh S (2002) The Computational Structure of Life Cycle Assessment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. |
[37] |
Miller SA, Moysey S, Sharp B, et al. (2013) A Stochastic Approach to Model Dynamic Systems in Life Cycle Assessment. J Ind Ecol 17: 352–362. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00531.x
![]() |
[38] |
Bichraoui-Draper N, Xu M, Miller SA, et al. (2015) Agent-based life cycle assessment for switchgrass-based bioenergy systems. Resour, Conserv Recycl 103: 171–178. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.08.003
![]() |
[39] | Heairet A, Choudhary S, Miller S, et al. (2012) Beyond life cycle analysis: Using an agent-based approach to model the emerging bio-energy industry, In: Proceedings of 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technology (ISSST), Boston, MA, 1–5. |
[40] | Navarrete Gutiérrez T, Rege S, Marvuglia A, et al. (2015) Introducing LCA Results to ABM for Assessing the Influence of Sustainable Behaviours, In: Bajo J, Hernández JZ, Mathieu P, Campbell A, Fernández-Caballero A, Moreno MN, Julián V, Alonso-Betanzos A, Jiménez-López MD, Botti V (eds.), Trends in Practical Applications of Agents, Multi-Agent Systems and Sustainability, Springer International Publishing, 185–196. |
[41] |
Marvuglia A, Rege S, Navarrete Gutiérrez T, et al. (2017) A return on experience from the application of agent-based simulations coupled with life cycle assessment to model agricultural processes. J Clean Prod 142: 1539–1551. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.150
![]() |
[42] | Davidsson P, Verhagen H (2013) Types of Simulation, In: Edmonds B, Meyer R (eds.), Simulating Social Complexity, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 23–36. |
[43] |
Smajgl A, Brown DG, Valbuena D, et al. (2011) Empirical characterisation of agent behaviours in socio-ecological systems. Environ Modell Softw 26: 837–844. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.02.011
![]() |
[44] | Huynh N, Namazi-Rad M, Perez P, et al. (2013) Generating a Synthetic Population in Support of Agent-Based Modeling of Transportation in Sydney. |
[45] | Bichraoui-Draper N (2015) Computational Sustainability Assessment: Agent-based Models and Agricultural Industrial Ecology. Université de Technologie de Troyes. |
[46] |
Bruch E, Atwell J (2015) Agent-Based Models in Empirical Social Research. Sociol Meth Res 44: 186–221. doi: 10.1177/0049124113506405
![]() |
[47] | Bandini S, Manzoni S, Vizzari G (2009) Agent Based Modeling and Simulation: An Informatics Perspective. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 12: 4. |
[48] | Norling EJ (2009) Modelling Human Behavior with BDI Agents. PhD thesis, University of Melbourne. |
[49] |
Goldman A (1993) The psychology of folk psychology. Behav Brain Sci 16: 15–28. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00028648
![]() |
[50] |
Caillou P, Gaudou B, Grignard A, et al. (2017) A Simple-to-use BDI architecture for Agent-based Modeling and Simulation. Adv Intell Syst Comput 528: 15–28. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-47253-9_2
![]() |
[51] | Quang Truong C (2016) Integrating cognitive models of human decision-making in agent-based models: an application to land use planning under climate change in the Mekong river delta. PhD Thesis, Université Pierre et Marie Curie-Paris VI. |
[52] |
Rand W, Rust RT (2011) Agent-based modeling in marketing: Guidelines for rigor. Int J Res Mark 28: 181–193. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2011.04.002
![]() |
[53] |
Watts DJ, Strogatz SH (1998) Collective dynamics of "small-world" networks. Nature 393: 440–442. doi: 10.1038/30918
![]() |
[54] | Marvuglia A, Rege S, Vázquez-Rowe I, et al. (2013) Applying agent-based modelling for consequential Life Cycle Assessment of agro-systems: Challenges, strategies and assets. 6th International Conference on Life Cycle Management, Gothenburg, Sweden, 25–28 August 2013. |
[55] |
Moglia M, Cook S, McGregor J (2017) A review of Agent-Based Modelling of Technology Diffusion with special reference to residential energy efficiency. Sust Cities Soc 31: 173–182. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2017.03.006
![]() |
[56] | Borshchev A (2013) The Big Book of Simulation Modeling: Multimethod Modeling with Anylogic 6. AnyLogic North America. |
[57] | Grignard A, Drogoul A, Zucker JD (2013) Online analysis and visualization of agent based models. Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, 662–672. |
[58] |
Happe K, Kellermann K, Balmann A (2006) Agent-based Analysis of Agricultural Policies: An Illustration of the Agricultural Policy Simulator AgriPoliS, its Adaptation and Behavior. Ecol Soc 11: 49 doi: 10.5751/ES-01741-110149
![]() |
[59] |
Zellner ML, Theis TL, Karunanithi AT, et al. (2008) A new framework for urban sustainability assessments: Linking complexity, information and policy. Comput, Environ Urban Syst 32: 474–488. doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2008.08.003
![]() |
[60] | Astier M, García-Barrios L, Galván-Miyoshi Y, et al. (2012) Assessing the Sustainability of Small Farmer Natural Resource Management Systems. A Critical Analysis of the MESMIS Program (1995–2010). Ecol Soc 17: 20. |
[61] |
Murray-Rust D, Robinson DT, Guillem E, et al. (2014) An open framework for agent based modelling of agricultural land use change. Environ Modell Softw 61: 19–38. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.06.027
![]() |
[62] |
Wise S, Crooks AT (2012) Agent-based modeling for community resource management: Acequia-based agriculture. Comput, Environ Urban Syst 36: 562–572. doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2012.08.004
![]() |
[63] | Kravari K, Bassiliades N (2015) A Survey of Agent Platforms. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 18: 11 |
[64] | Kornhauser D, Wilensky U, Rand W (2009) Design Guidelines for Agent Based Model Visualization. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 12: 21. |
[65] | Edmonds B, Moss S, (2005) From KISS to KIDS-An "Anti-simplistic" Modelling Approach, In: Multi-Agent and Multi-Agent-Based Simulation, 130–144. |
[66] | Waldherr A, Wijermans N (2013) Communicating social simulation models to sceptical minds. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 16: 13. |
[67] |
Bert FE, Rovere SL, Macal CM, et al. (2014) Lessons from a comprehensive validation of an agent based-model: The experience of the Pampas Model of Argentinean agricultural systems. Ecol Model 273: 284–298. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.11.024
![]() |
[68] |
Sargent RG (2013) Verification and validation of simulation models. J Simul 7: 12–24. doi: 10.1057/jos.2012.20
![]() |
[69] | Zeigler BP, Praehofer H, Kim TG (2000) Theory of Modeling and Simulation: Integrating Discrete Event and Continuous Complex Dynamic Systems. Academic Press. |
[70] |
Bianchi C, Cirillo P, Gallegati M, et al. (2007) Validating and Calibrating Agent-Based Models: A Case Study. Comput Econ 30: 245–264. doi: 10.1007/s10614-007-9097-z
![]() |
[71] | David N, (2013) Validating Simulations, In: Edmonds B, Meyer R (eds.), Simulating Social Complexity, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 135–171. |
[72] | Windrum P, Fagiolo G, Moneta A (2007) Empirical Validation of Agent-Based Models: Alternatives and Prospects. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 10: 8. |
[73] | Knepell PL, Arangno DC (1993) Simulation Validation: A Confidence Assessment Methodology. Wiley-IEEE Computer Society Press. |
[74] | McKelvey B, (2002) Model-Centered Organization Science Epistemology, In: Baum JAC (ed.), Companion to Organizations, Wiley-Blackwell, 752–780. |
[75] |
Voinov A, Bousquet F (2010) Modelling with stakeholders. Environ Modell Softw 25: 1268–1281. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.03.007
![]() |
[76] |
Louie MA, Carley KM (2008) Balancing the criticisms: Validating multi-agent models of social systems. Simul Model Pract Theory 16: 242–256. doi: 10.1016/j.simpat.2007.11.011
![]() |
[77] |
Bianchi C, Cirillo P, Gallegati M, et al. (2008) Validation in agent-based models: An investigation on the CATS model. J Econ Behav Org 67: 947–964. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2007.08.008
![]() |
[78] |
Fagiolo G, Birchenhall C, Windrum P (2007) Empirical Validation in Agent-based Models: Introduction to the Special Issue. Comput Econ 30: 189–194. doi: 10.1007/s10614-007-9109-z
![]() |
[79] |
Fagiolo G, Moneta A, Windrum P (2007) A Critical Guide to Empirical Validation of Agent-Based Models in Economics: Methodologies, Procedures, and Open Problems. Comput Econ 30: 195–226. doi: 10.1007/s10614-007-9104-4
![]() |
[80] | Damgaard M, Kjeldsen C, Sahrbacher A, et al. (2009) Validation of an Agent-Based, Spatio-Temporal Model for Farming in the River Gudenå Landscape. Results from the MEA-Scope Case Study in Denmark, In: Piorr A, Müller K (eds.), Rural Landscapes and Agricultural Policies in Europe, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 239–254. |
[81] |
Park HS, Rene ER, Choi SM, et al. (2008) Strategies for sustainable development of industrial park in Ulsan, South Korea-from spontaneous evolution to systematic expansion of industrial symbiosis. J Environ Manage 87: 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.12.045
![]() |
[82] |
Busch J, Roelich K, Bale CSE, et al. (2017) Scaling up local energy infrastructure; An agent-based model of the emergence of district heating networks. Energ Policy 100: 170–180. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.10.011
![]() |
[83] | Rotmans J (2006) Tools for Integrated Sustainability Assessment: A two-track approach. Int Assess J 6: 35–57. |
[84] | Axtell RL (2000) Why agents? on the varied motivations for agent computing in the social sciences. Center on Social and Economic Dynamics. |
[85] | Davis C (2007) Integration of Life Cycle Analysis within Agent Based Modeling using a case study on bio-electricity. MSc thesis, TU Delft. |
[86] | Segovia-Juarez JL, Ganguli S, Kirschner D (2004) Identifying control mechanisms of granuloma formation during M. tuberculosis infection using an agent-based model. J Theor Biol 231: 357–376. |
[87] |
Topping CJ, Dalkvist T, Grimm V (2012) Post-Hoc Pattern-Oriented Testing and Tuning of an Existing Large Model: Lessons from the Field Vole. PLoS One 7: e45872. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0045872
![]() |
[88] |
Grimm V, Revilla E, Berger U, et al. (2005) Pattern-Oriented Modeling of Agent-Based Complex Systems: Lessons from Ecology. Science 310: 987–991. doi: 10.1126/science.1116681
![]() |
[89] | Grimm V, Railsback SF (2011) Pattern-oriented modelling: A "multi-scope" for predictive systems ecology. Philos T Roy Soc B 367: 298–310. |
[90] |
Topping CJ, Høye TT, Olesen CR (2010) Opening the black box-Development, testing and documentation of a mechanistically rich agent-based model. Ecol Model 221: 245–255. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.09.014
![]() |
[91] |
Delmotte S, Barbier JM, Mouret JC, et al. (2016) Participatory integrated assessment of scenarios for organic farming at different scales in Camargue, France. Agric Syst 143: 147–158. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2015.12.009
![]() |
[92] | Andrei N, (2013) Introduction to GAMS Technology, In: Andrei N (ed.), Nonlinear Optimization Applications Using the GAMS Technology, Springer US, Boston, MA, 9–23. |
[93] |
Moss S, Edmonds B (2005) Sociology and Simulation: Statistical and Qualitative Cross-Validation. Am J Soc 110: 1095–1131. doi: 10.1086/427320
![]() |
[94] |
Laurent G (2000) Improving the external validity of marketing models: A plea for more qualitative input. Int J Res Mark 17: 177–182. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8116(00)00020-3
![]() |
[95] |
Smajgl A, Xu J, Egan S, et al. (2015) Assessing the effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services for diversifying rubber in Yunnan, China. Environ Modell Softw 69: 187–195. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.03.014
![]() |
[96] | Smajgl A, Ward JR, Foran T, et al. (2015) Visions, beliefs, and transformation: Exploring cross-sector and transboundary dynamics in the wider Mekong region. Ecol Soc 20: 16. |
[97] | Smajgl A, Ward J, Egan S (2013) Validating simulations of development outcomes in the Mekong region. |
[98] | Box G (1979) Robustness in the strategy of scientific model building. Robustness in Statistics. |
[99] |
Schouten M, Verwaart T, Heijman W (2014) Comparing two sensitivity analysis approaches for two scenarios with a spatially explicit rural agent-based model. Environ Modell Softw 54: 196–210. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.01.003
![]() |
[100] |
Filatova T, Verburg PH, Parker DC, et al. (2013) Spatial agent-based models for socio-ecological systems: Challenges and prospects. Environ Modell Softw 45: 1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.03.017
![]() |
[101] | Saltelli A, Ratto M, Andres T, et al. (2008) Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer. Wiley & Sons. |
[102] |
Cariboni J, Gatelli D, Liska R, et al. (2007) The role of sensitivity analysis in ecological modelling. Ecol Model 203: 167–182. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.10.045
![]() |
[103] |
Marino S, Hogue IB, Ray CJ, et al. (2008) A methodology for performing global uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in systems biology. J Theor Biol 254: 178–196. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2008.04.011
![]() |
[104] |
Lorscheid I, Heine BO, Meyer M (2012) Opening the "black box" of simulations: increased transparency and effective communication through the systematic design of experiments. Comput Math Organ Theor 18: 22–62. doi: 10.1007/s10588-011-9097-3
![]() |
[105] |
Dancik GM, Jones DE, Dorman KS (2010) Parameter estimation and sensitivity analysis in an agent-based model of Leishmania major infection. J Theor Biol 262: 398–412. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2009.10.007
![]() |
[106] |
Ratto M, Castelletti A, Pagano A (2012) Emulation techniques for the reduction and sensitivity analysis of complex environmental models. Environ Modell Softw 34: 1–4. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.11.003
![]() |
[107] | Happe K (2005) Agent-based modelling and sensitivity analysis by experimental design and metamodelling: An application to modelling regional structural change. |
[108] |
Fonoberova M, Fonoberov VA, Mezić I (2013) Global sensitivity/uncertainty analysis for agent-based models. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 118: 8–17. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2013.04.004
![]() |
[109] |
Ligmann-Zielinska A, Kramer DB, Cheruvelil KS, et al. (2014) Using Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analyses in Socioecological Agent-Based Models to Improve Their Analytical Performance and Policy Relevance. PLoS One 9: e109779. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109779
![]() |
[110] |
Ligmann-Zielinska A, Sun L (2010) Applying time-dependent variance-based global sensitivity analysis to represent the dynamics of an agent-based model of land use change. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 24: 1829–1850. doi: 10.1080/13658816.2010.490533
![]() |
[111] |
Alam M, Deng X, Philipson C, et al. (2015) Sensitivity Analysis of an ENteric Immunity SImulator (ENISI)-Based Model of Immune Responses to Helicobacter pylori Infection. PLoS One 10: e0136139. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136139
![]() |
[112] |
Troost C, Berger T (2015) Dealing with Uncertainty in Agent-Based Simulation: Farm-Level Modeling of Adaptation to Climate Change in Southwest Germany. Am J Agr Econ 97: 833–854. doi: 10.1093/ajae/aau076
![]() |
[113] |
Bell A, Parkhurst G, Droppelmann K, et al. (2016) Scaling up pro-environmental agricultural practice using agglomeration payments: Proof of concept from an agent-based model. Ecol Econ 126: 32–41. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.03.002
![]() |
[114] |
Parry HR, Topping CJ, Kennedy MC, et al. (2013) A Bayesian sensitivity analysis applied to an Agent-based model of bird population response to landscape change. Environ Modell Softw 45: 104–115. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.08.006
![]() |
[115] |
Yang J (2011) Convergence and uncertainty analyses in Monte-Carlo based sensitivity analysis. Environ Modell Softw 26: 444–457. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.10.007
![]() |
[116] |
Ligmann-Zielinska A, Jankowski P (2010) Exploring normative scenarios of land use development decisions with an agent-based simulation laboratory. Comput, Environ Urban Syst 34: 409–423. doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2010.05.005
![]() |
[117] | Igos E, Benetto E, Meyer R, et al. (2018) How to treat uncertainties in life cycle assessment studies? Int J Life Cycle Assess, 1–14. |
[118] | Lloyd SM, Ries R (2007) Characterizing, Propagating, and Analyzing Uncertainty in Life-Cycle Assessment: A Survey of Quantitative Approaches. J Ind Ecol 11: 161–179. |
[119] | Huijbregts MAJ, Gilijamse W, Ragas AMJ, et al. (2003) Evaluating Uncertainty in Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment. A Case Study Comparing Two Insulation Options for a Dutch One-Family Dwelling. Environ Sci Technol 37: 2600–2608. |
[120] |
Wei W, Larrey-Lassalle P, Faure T, et al. (2015) How to Conduct a Proper Sensitivity Analysis in Life Cycle Assessment: Taking into Account Correlations within LCI Data and Interactions within the LCA Calculation Model. Environ Sci Technol 49: 377–385. doi: 10.1021/es502128k
![]() |
[121] |
Parker DC, Hessl A, Davis SC (2008) Complexity, land-use modeling, and the human dimension: Fundamental challenges for mapping unknown outcome spaces. Geoforum 39: 789–804. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.05.005
![]() |
[122] | Filatova T, Parker DC, van der Veen A (2009) Agent-Based Urban Land Markets: Agent's Pricing Behavior, Land Prices and Urban Land Use Change. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 12: 13. |
[123] |
Schreinemachers P, Berger T (2011) An agent-based simulation model of human-environment interactions in agricultural systems. Environ Modell Softw 26: 845–859. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.02.004
![]() |
[124] |
Feola G, Binder CR (2010) Towards an improved understanding of farmers' behavior: The integrative agent-centred (IAC) framework. Ecol Econ 69: 2323–2333. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.07.023
![]() |
[125] | Jackson T (2005) Motivating sustainable consumption. A review of evidence on consumer behavior and behavioural change. A Report to the Sustainable Development Research Network. Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey, Guilford. |
[126] |
Bonabeau E (2002) Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems. P Natl Acad Sci USA 99: 7280–7287. doi: 10.1073/pnas.082080899
![]() |
[127] |
Matthews R, Gilbert N, Roach A, et al. (2007) Agent-based land-use models: A review of applications. Landscape Ecol 22: 1447–1459. doi: 10.1007/s10980-007-9135-1
![]() |
[128] |
Parker DC, Manson SM, Janssen MA, et al. (2003) Multi-Agent Systems for the Simulation of Land-Use and Land-Cover Change: A review. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 93: 314–337. doi: 10.1111/1467-8306.9302004
![]() |
[129] |
Berger T, Schreinemachers P, Woelcke J (2006) Multi-agent simulation for the targeting of development policies in less-favored areas. Agr Syst 88: 28–43. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2005.06.002
![]() |
[130] |
Freeman T, Nolan J, Schoney R (2009) An Agent-Based Simulation Model of Structural Change in Canadian Prairie Agriculture, 1960–2000. Can J Agr Econ 57: 537–554. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2009.01169.x
![]() |
[131] | Happe K, Balmann A, Kellermann K, et al. (2008) Does structure matter? The impact of switching the agricultural policy regime on farm structures. J Econ Behav Org 67: 431–444. |
[132] |
Mialhe F, Becu N, Gunnell Y (2012) An agent-based model for analyzing land use dynamics in response to farmer behavior and environmental change in the Pampanga delta (Philippines). Agric, Ecosyst Environ 161: 55–69. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2012.07.016
![]() |
[133] | Kaye-Blake W, Li FY, McLeish MA, et al. (2010) Multi-agent simulation models in agriculture: A review of their construction and uses. 60. |
[134] |
Marohn C, Schreinemachers P, Quang DV, et al. (2013) A software coupling approach to assess low-cost soil conservation strategies for highland agriculture in Vietnam. Environ Modell Softw 45: 116–128. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.03.020
![]() |
[135] |
Murray-Rust D, Brown C, van Vliet J, et al. (2014) Combining agent functional types, capitals and services to model land use dynamics. Environ Modell Softw 59: 187–201. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.05.019
![]() |
[136] | Hauschild MZ, Huijbregts MAJ (2015) LCA compendium-the complete world of life cycle assessment: Life cycle impact assessment. Springer, Dordrecht. |
1. | Philip F. Mixter, Adam J. Kleinschmit, Archana Lal, Thiru Vanniasinkam, Danielle L. J. Condry, Rebekah T. Taylor, Louis B. Justement, Sumali Pandey, Nicole C. Kelp, Immune Literacy: a Call to Action for a System-Level Change, 2023, 1935-7877, 10.1128/jmbe.00203-22 | |
2. | Nasim Aslani, Ali Behmanesh, Fereshteh Davoodi, Ali Garavand, Roshanak Shams, Infodemic Challenges During COVID-19 Pandemic and the Strategies to Deal with Them: A Review Article, 2022, 17, 2345-2641, 10.5812/archcid-127022 | |
3. | Angela Ishak, Meghana Mehendale, Mousa M AlRawashdeh, Cristina Sestacovschi, Medha Sharath, Krunal Pandav, Sima Marzban, The association of COVID-19 severity and susceptibility and genetic risk factors: A systematic review of the literature, 2022, 836, 03781119, 146674, 10.1016/j.gene.2022.146674 | |
4. | S. Zeinab Mousavi, Christopher T. Barry, Brianna M. Halter, Relations of Adolescent Knowledge of COVID-19, Social Media Engagement, and Experiences During Quarantine/Lockdown with Well-Being, 2023, 32, 1062-1024, 110, 10.1007/s10826-022-02465-0 | |
5. | Jinjin Ma, Yidi Chen, Huanya Zhu, Yiqun Gan, Fighting COVID-19 Misinformation through an Online Game Based on the Inoculation Theory: Analyzing the Mediating Effects of Perceived Threat and Persuasion Knowledge, 2023, 20, 1660-4601, 980, 10.3390/ijerph20020980 | |
6. | Claudia Ferreira, Marie-Françoise J. Doursout, Joselito S. Balingit, 2023, Chapter 15, 978-3-031-10034-5, 373, 10.1007/978-3-031-10035-2_15 | |
7. | Ataharul Chowdhury, Khondokar H. Kabir, Abdul-Rahim Abdulai, Md Firoze Alam, Systematic Review of Misinformation in Social and Online Media for the Development of an Analytical Framework for Agri-Food Sector, 2023, 15, 2071-1050, 4753, 10.3390/su15064753 | |
8. | Paulina M. Colombo, Sarah Freylersythe, Mary Margaret Sprinkle, Kacey C. Ernst, Marcela Yubeta, Juliana L. Barbati, Nirav Merchant, Sriram Iyengar, Tracy E. Crane, Maliaca Oxnam, Stephen A. Rains, Design and implementation of a health messaging protocol employed for use within a COVID-19 health dissemination platform, 2022, 10, 2296-2565, 10.3389/fpubh.2022.942795 | |
9. | Mervat Alhaffar, Hala Mkhallalati, Omar Alrashid Alhiraki, Manar Marzouk, Ahmad Khanshour, Yazan Douedari, Natasha Howard, Sakul Kundra, “They cannot afford to feed their children and the advice is to stay home. How‥?”: A qualitative study of community experiences of COVID-19 response efforts across Syria, 2022, 17, 1932-6203, e0277215, 10.1371/journal.pone.0277215 | |
10. | W. K. Wong, Jeffery T. H. Kong, Filbert H. Juwono, 2023, Fake News Detection: A Brief Investigation Into the State-of-The-Art Approaches and A Mixed Language Dataset, 979-8-3503-1068-9, 1, 10.1109/ICDATE58146.2023.10248614 | |
11. | Adam M. Taylor, Quenton Wessels, “Spine to the future”—A narrative review of anatomy engagement, 2024, 17, 1935-9772, 735, 10.1002/ase.2417 | |
12. | Giovanna Deiana, Marco Dettori, Antonella Arghittu, Antonio Azara, Giovanni Gabutti, Paolo Castiglia, Artificial Intelligence and Public Health: Evaluating ChatGPT Responses to Vaccination Myths and Misconceptions, 2023, 11, 2076-393X, 1217, 10.3390/vaccines11071217 | |
13. | Lucy H. Butler, Toby Prike, Ullrich K. H. Ecker, Nudge-based misinformation interventions are effective in information environments with low misinformation prevalence, 2024, 14, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-024-62286-7 | |
14. | Diganta Das, Berwyn Kwek, AI and data-driven urbanism: The Singapore experience, 2024, 7, 26663783, 100104, 10.1016/j.diggeo.2024.100104 | |
15. | Michal Ordak, Statistical recommendations for the Global Burden of Disease studies, 2024, 40, 0300-7995, 123, 10.1080/03007995.2023.2283203 | |
16. | Jeffrey Pradeep Raj, Suraj Kallarakal Tomy, Amrutha Jose, Aadrika Kashyap, Joseph Varghese Kureethara, Tomy K Kallarakal, Knowledge and perceptions about clinical research and its ethical conduct among college students from non-science background: a representative nation-wide survey from India, 2024, 2, 2753-4294, e000748, 10.1136/bmjph-2023-000748 | |
17. | Sabrina L Jin, Jessica Kolis, Jessica Parker, Dylan A Proctor, Dimitri Prybylski, Claire Wardle, Neetu Abad, Kathryn A Brookmeyer, Christopher Voegeli, Howard Chiou, Social histories of public health misinformation and infodemics: case studies of four pandemics, 2024, 24, 14733099, e638, 10.1016/S1473-3099(24)00105-1 | |
18. | Farah Tan Li Yee, Arvind Rajagopalan, David Teo Choon Liang, COVID-19: When It Leaves Us Voiceless and Powerless, 2024, 52, 2162-2590, 173, 10.1521/pdps.2024.52.2.173 | |
19. | Anna Wilson, Seb Wilkes, Yayoi Teramoto, Scott Hale, Multimodal analysis of disinformation and misinformation, 2023, 10, 2054-5703, 10.1098/rsos.230964 | |
20. | Kyungeun Jang, Young Min Baek, How Does COVID-19 Misinformation Endanger Public Health During the Pandemic? : Insights from Panel Data Analysis, 2024, 68, 2586-7369, 5, 10.20879/kjjcs.2024.68.4.001 | |
21. | Molly Kwitny, Quinn Richards, Natalie Cann, Jasmine Lewis, Kayla Vaught, Arushi Bejoy, Fernanda Gutierrez Matos, Grace DiGirolamo, Chloe Loving, Teagan Neveldine, Sakina Weekes, Sophie Wenzel, People of a Pandemic, 2023, 4, 2576-6775, 4, 10.21061/cc.v4i2.a.51 | |
22. | Michael Shliselberg, Ashkan Kazemi, Scott A. Hale, Shiri Dori-Hacohen, 2024, SynDy: Syn thetic Dy namic Dataset Generation Framework for Misinformation Tasks , 9798400704314, 2801, 10.1145/3626772.3657667 | |
23. | Daniela Luz Moyano, María Silveria Agulló-Tomás, Vanessa Zorrilla-Muñoz, Género, infodemia y desinformación en salud. Revisión de alcance global, vacíos de conocimiento y recomendaciones, 2024, 31, 1757-9759, 70, 10.1177/17579759231216945 | |
24. | Farrukh A. Chishtie, Susan Forwell, W. Ben Mortenson, Saori Ogura, Occupational security: A holistic values-based framework for supporting occupations and safety, 2024, 31, 1442-7591, 704, 10.1080/14427591.2024.2346177 | |
25. | Kathryn L. Hopkins, Talya Underwood, Iddi Iddrisu, Hanna Woldemeskel, Helena Ballester Bon, Symen Brouwers, Sofia De Almeida, Natalie Fol, Alka Malhotra, Shalini Prasad, Sowmyaa Bharadwaj, Aarunima Bhatnagar, Stacey Knobler, Gloria Lihemo, Community-Based Approaches to Increase COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake and Demand: Lessons Learned from Four UNICEF-Supported Interventions, 2023, 11, 2076-393X, 1180, 10.3390/vaccines11071180 | |
26. | Farjana Memon, Modou L. Jobarteh, Komal Shah, Anish Sinha, Monali Patel, Shailee Patil, Claire Heffernan, Deepak B. Saxena, Challenges to research implementation during public health emergencies: anecdote of insights and lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic in Gujarat, India, 2024, 12, 2296-2565, 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1417712 | |
27. | Tanvir Ahammad, Identifying hidden patterns of fake COVID-19 news: An in-depth sentiment analysis and topic modeling approach, 2024, 6, 29497191, 100053, 10.1016/j.nlp.2024.100053 | |
28. | Samiyah Alshehri, Malik Sallam, Vaccine conspiracy association with higher COVID-19 vaccination side effects and negative attitude towards booster COVID-19, influenza and monkeypox vaccines: A pilot study in Saudi Universities, 2023, 19, 2164-5515, 10.1080/21645515.2023.2275962 | |
29. | Salina Shrestha, Rabin Malla, Sadhana Shrestha, Pallavi Singh, Jeevan B. Sherchand, Ismail Ayoade Odetokun, Knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) on COVID-19 among the general population in most affected districts of Nepal, 2023, 3, 2767-3375, e0001977, 10.1371/journal.pgph.0001977 | |
30. | Iris Feinberg, Randi N. Smith, Amy Zeidan, Deepika Kogonti, Kelleigh Dawn Trepanier, Stephanie Adrian, Mary Helen O’Connor, Cultural and linguistic adaptation of stop the bleed: saving lives in a multi-ethnic refugee resettlement community, 2024, 2, 2835-5245, 10.1080/28355245.2024.2333309 | |
31. | A. O'Farrell, P. Naughton, P. Kavanagh, Is COVID-19 finally just a bad flu? Follow-up study comparing disease severity among COVID-19 and seasonal influenza hospital in-patients across pandemic waves in Ireland, 2024, 236, 00333506, 15, 10.1016/j.puhe.2024.07.010 | |
32. | Hannah McConnell, Debbie Duncan, Patrick Stark, Tara Anderson, James McMahon, Laura Creighton, Stephanie Craig, Gillian Carter, Alison Smart, Abdulelah Alanazi, Gary Mitchell, Enhancing COVID-19 Knowledge among Nursing Students: A Quantitative Study of a Digital Serious Game Intervention, 2024, 12, 2227-9032, 1066, 10.3390/healthcare12111066 | |
33. | Emilie R. Madsen, Kay Schaffer, Rachel Hare Bork, Valerie A. Yeager, On-the-Job Learning: Bright Spots of Governmental Public Health Employee Reflections on the COVID-19 Response, 2024, 30, 1078-4659, 372, 10.1097/PHH.0000000000001880 | |
34. | Jessie Golding, Helen Chmura, Lessons for conservation from the mistakes of the COVID‐19 pandemic: The promise and peril of big data and new communication modalities, 2024, 6, 2578-4854, 10.1111/csp2.13090 | |
35. | Katsuya Nitta, Haruaki Naito, Takahiro Tabuchi, Yasuhiro Kakiuchi, Fear of COVID-19 and illicit drug use during COVID-19 pandemic in Japan: a case-control study, 2024, 12, 2167-8359, e18137, 10.7717/peerj.18137 | |
36. | Thanh-Son Nguyen, Vinh Dang, Minh-Triet Tran, Duc-Tien Dang-Nguyen, 2023, Leveraging Cross-Modals for Cheapfakes Detection, 9798400701863, 51, 10.1145/3592571.3592975 | |
37. | Simon D. Lytton, Asish Kumar Ghosh, SARS-CoV-2 Variants and COVID-19 in Bangladesh—Lessons Learned, 2024, 16, 1999-4915, 1077, 10.3390/v16071077 | |
38. | Przemysław Waszak, Ewelina Łuszczak, Paweł Zagożdżon, COVID-19 in Polish-language social media - misinformation vs government information, 2024, 13, 22118837, 100871, 10.1016/j.hlpt.2024.100871 | |
39. | Reza Kianian, Deyu Sun, William Rojas-Carabali, Rupesh Agrawal, Edmund Tsui, Can Large Language Models Help Patients Understand Peer-Reviewed Scientific Articles About Ophthalmology? (Preprint), 2024, 1438-8871, 10.2196/59843 | |
40. | Esther Van Poel, Tessa van Loenen, Claire Collins, Kaatje Van Roy, Maria Van den Muijsenbergh, Sara Willems, Barriers and Enablers Experienced by General Practitioners in Delivering Safe and Equitable Care during COVID-19: A Qualitative Investigation in Two Countries, 2023, 11, 2227-9032, 3009, 10.3390/healthcare11233009 | |
41. | Siqi Jiang, Zeqi Guo, Jihong Ouyang, What makes sentiment signals work? Sentiment and stance multi-task learning for fake news detection, 2024, 303, 09507051, 112395, 10.1016/j.knosys.2024.112395 | |
42. | Shilpa Deo, Abhijit Mohanty, Deependra Sharma, Sushil Sharma, Dinesh Khisti, Misinformation as a Determinant of Response to COVID 19, 2024, 36, 1471-6909, 10.1093/ijpor/edae010 | |
43. | Duncan Koerber, Tim Ribaric, Fletcher Johnson, Cal Murgu, David Sharron, The Role of Municipalities in Communicating for Community Resilience during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Study of Niagara Region’s Crisis Communication, 2024, 49, 0705-3657, 64, 10.3138/cjc-2023-0003 | |
44. | Nadejda Komendantova, Dmitry Erokhin, Teresa Albano, Misinformation and Its Impact on Contested Policy Issues: The Example of Migration Discourses, 2023, 13, 2075-4698, 168, 10.3390/soc13070168 | |
45. | Christopher E. Beaudoin, Do social media matter? The effects of information seeking on COVID-19 psychological and behavioral processes, 2023, 83, 07365853, 102027, 10.1016/j.tele.2023.102027 | |
46. | Suepattra May, Meaghan Roach, Melissa Maravic, Rachel Mitrovich, Rozanne Wilson, Nadya Prood, Amanda L Eiden, Understanding the factors that shape vaccination ecosystem resilience: a qualitative assessment of international expert experiences and perspectives, 2024, 2, 2753-4294, e000381, 10.1136/bmjph-2023-000381 | |
47. | Yi-Yun Chao, I-Hsien Ting, Kazunori Minetaki, Mei-Yun Hsu, 2024, An Approach for Analyzing the Spread of Misinformation through Diffusion Patterns in Social Networks, 9798400717550, 81, 10.1145/3675669.3675693 | |
48. | John Cook, Chelsey Lepage, Kathryn L. Hopkins, Wendy Cook, Emmanuel Awuni Kolog, Angus Thomson, Iddi Iddrisu, Siobhan Burnette, Co-designing and pilot testing a digital game to improve vaccine attitudes and misinformation resistance in Ghana, 2024, 20, 2164-5515, 10.1080/21645515.2024.2407204 | |
49. | Azmi Mahafzah, Malik Sallam, Faris G. Bakri, Mohammad S. Mubarak, 2024, Chapter 17, 978-3-031-61938-0, 299, 10.1007/978-3-031-61939-7_17 | |
50. | Tyler R. Black, Measuring Mental Health Crises During the COVID-19 Pandemic—The Importance of Specific and Comprehensive Data Reporting, 2023, 6, 2574-3805, e2322672, 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.22672 | |
51. | Rano K. Sinuraya, Chalisma Wulandari, Riezki Amalia, Irma M. Puspitasari, Public knowledge, attitudes, and practices during the first wave of COVID-19 in Indonesia, 2023, 11, 2296-2565, 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1238371 | |
52. | Yudai Kaneda, Transcontinental insights: Measles vaccination strategies in the COVID-19 era, 2024, 59, 20522975, 101413, 10.1016/j.nmni.2024.101413 | |
53. | Josh Serchen, Katelan Cline, Suja Mathew, David Hilden, Suja Mathew, David Hilden, Micah Beachy, William Curry, Matthew Hollon, Cynthia Jumper, Pranav Mellacheruvu, Marianne Parshley, Ankita Sagar, Jamar Slocum, Michael Tan, Vanessa Van Doren, Elham Yousef, Preparing for Future Pandemics and Public Health Emergencies: An American College of Physicians Policy Position Paper, 2023, 176, 0003-4819, 1240, 10.7326/M23-0768 | |
54. | Brianna Wright, Daniel Kang, Allison Schuette, Melissa A. Ward, Matthew D. Krasowski, Aaron M. Scherer, Daniel J. Diekema, Joseph Cavanaugh, Loreen Herwaldt, SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among healthcare professionals in a rural state, 2024, 4, 2732-494X, 10.1017/ash.2024.420 | |
55. | Andra Sandu, Ioana Ioanăș, Camelia Delcea, Laura-Mădălina Geantă, Liviu-Adrian Cotfas, Mapping the Landscape of Misinformation Detection: A Bibliometric Approach, 2024, 15, 2078-2489, 60, 10.3390/info15010060 | |
56. | Payal Kapoor, Abhishek Behl, Those ‘funny’ internet memes: a study of misinformation retransmission and vaccine hesitancy, 2024, 0144-929X, 1, 10.1080/0144929X.2024.2303582 | |
57. | Emma K. Quinn, Robert T. Duffy, Kristian Larsen, Maria Dalton, Cheryl E. Peters, Anti-masking Posts on Instagram: Content Analysis During the COVID-19 Pandemic, 2024, 20937911, 10.1016/j.shaw.2024.11.002 | |
58. | Sachin Rathod, Jyotsna Potdar, Aishwarya Gupta, Neha Sethi, Anubha Dande, Empowering Women’s Health: Insights Into HPV Vaccination and the Prevention of Invasive Cervical Cancer, 2023, 2168-8184, 10.7759/cureus.49523 | |
59. | Robert John Ceglie, 2024, chapter 12, 9798369328453, 212, 10.4018/979-8-3693-2845-3.ch012 | |
60. | Markus Kraus, Christoph Stegner, Miriam Reiss, Monika Riedel, Anne Sofie Børsch, Karsten Vrangbaek, Morgane Michel, Kathleen Turmaine, Borbála Cseh, Csaba László Dózsa, Roberto Dandi, Angelo Rossi Mori, Thomas Czypionka, The role of primary care during the pandemic: shared experiences from providers in five European countries, 2023, 23, 1472-6963, 10.1186/s12913-023-09998-0 | |
61. | Alda Kiss, Qian Zhang, Meg Carley, Maureen Smith, France Légaré, Patrick Archambault, Dawn Stacey, Quality of patient decision aids to support the public making COVID-19 decisions: An online environmental scan, 2023, 114, 07383991, 107797, 10.1016/j.pec.2023.107797 | |
62. | Edmund J.S. Sonuga‐Barke, Pasco Fearon, Commentary: Health anxiety in youth during ‘COVID’ – some thoughts prompted by Rask et al. (2024), 2024, 65, 0021-9630, 431, 10.1111/jcpp.13973 | |
63. | Ntombophelo Sithole-Tetani, Andile Qotoyi, Simon Murote Kang’ethe, A Reflection of Community Dilemmas Driven by the Advent of Coronavirus in Eclectic Rural Contexts in South Africa, 2024, 2720-7722, 1747, 10.38159/ehass.202451110 | |
64. | Jonathon Ryan, The big global issues: Applied linguists and transdisciplinarity beyond SLA, 2024, 0802-6106, 10.1111/ijal.12623 | |
65. | Jaimi L. Allen, Benjamin C. Amick, Mark L. Williams, Joshua L. Kennedy, Karl W. Boehme, J. Craig Forrest, Brian Primack, Erica Ashley Sides, Wendy N. Nembhard, Stephanie F. Gardner, Jessica N. Snowden, Laura P. James, Ericka Olgaard, Jay Gandy, A longitudinal study of SARS-CoV-2 antibody seroprevalence and mitigation behaviors among college students at an Arkansas University, 2023, 0744-8481, 1, 10.1080/07448481.2023.2217456 | |
66. | Alexander Gamst Page, Sobh Chahboun, 2024, 10.5772/intechopen.1006185 | |
67. | Surya Kant Tiwari, Saumya Prakash Srivastava, Bhavna Rani, Soni Chauhan, Addressing Health Misinformation: Promoting Accurate and Reliable Information, 2024, 2321-4848, 10.4103/amhs.amhs_314_23 | |
68. | Lisa Hartling, Sarah A. Elliott, Kelsey S. Wright, Lisa Knisley, Shannon D. Scott, ‘It's quite a balancing act’: A qualitative study of parents' experiences and information needs related to the COVID‐19 pandemic, 2024, 27, 1369-6513, 10.1111/hex.13994 | |
69. | Ila M. Harris, Michelle L. Hilaire, Michelle Jeon, Karen L. Kier, Faria M. Munir, Alex S. Carmon, Melissa V. Maffei, S. Mimi Mukherjee, Sharmon P. Osae, Pharmacists' role in combating medical misinformation, 2024, 7, 2574-9870, 947, 10.1002/jac5.2005 | |
70. | Kristy Roschke, Alexis M Koskan, Shalini Sivanandam, Jonathan Irby, Partisan Media, Trust, and Media Literacy: Regression Analysis of Predictors of COVID-19 Knowledge, 2024, 8, 2561-326X, e53904, 10.2196/53904 | |
71. | Ning Geng, Zhenhua Tan, Tao Zhang, Danke Wu, 2025, Chapter 29, 978-981-97-9439-3, 372, 10.1007/978-981-97-9440-9_29 | |
72. | Samuel Cornell, Timothy Piatkowski, Melody Taba, Amy E. Peden, Meeting people where they are: leveraging influencers’ social capital and trust to promote safer behaviours, 2024, 2, 2835-5245, 10.1080/28355245.2024.2350155 | |
73. | Arham Yahya Rizwan Khan, Mashal Aziz Rana, Dur e Shewar Naqvi, Amina Asif, Fizza Najeeb, Sajida Naseem , Health-Seeking Behaviour and Its Determinants Following the COVID-19 Pandemic, 2024, 2168-8184, 10.7759/cureus.52225 | |
74. | Ibrahim K El Mikati, Reem Hoteit, Tarek Harb, Ola El Zein, Thomas Piggott, Jad Melki, Reem A Mustafa, Elie A Akl, Defining Misinformation and Related Terms in Health-Related Literature: Scoping Review, 2023, 25, 1438-8871, e45731, 10.2196/45731 | |
75. | Laurence J. Kirmayer, Science and sanity: A social epistemology of misinformation, disinformation, and the limits of knowledge, 2024, 1363-4615, 10.1177/13634615241296301 | |
76. | Alfons Hollederer, Ines Dieckmännken, Health and health literacy among social Work students in Germany: A cross-sectional health survey, 2024, 1937-1918, 1, 10.1080/19371918.2024.2434737 | |
77. | Carla Bang, Kelly Carroll, Niyati Mistry, Justin Presseau, Natasha Hudek, Sezgi Yanikomeroglu, Jamie C. Brehaut, Use of Implementation Science Concepts in the Study of Misinformation: A Scoping Review, 2024, 1090-1981, 10.1177/10901981241303871 | |
78. | Jeremy S Rossman, Vicky van der Togt, Recovery is missing in the pandemic treaty, 2024, 1756-1833, q2827, 10.1136/bmj.q2827 | |
79. | Mariam F. Yusuf, Washington Onyango-Ouma, Jacinta Victoria S. Muinde, Cynthia Khamala Wangamati, Challenges faced by community health volunteers in offering sexual and reproductive health care services to young women during the COVID-19 pandemic in Khwisero and Nairobi in Kenya, 2025, 6, 2673-3153, 10.3389/frph.2024.1491093 | |
80. | Samira Borji, Sirous Panahi, Maryam Razmgir, The role of health librarians in combating misinformation: Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic, 2024, 0266-6669, 10.1177/02666669241306721 | |
81. | Paul Dobrescu, Flavia Durach, 2025, Chapter 4, 978-3-031-74684-0, 117, 10.1007/978-3-031-74685-7_4 | |
82. | Bruno Špiljak, Luka Šimunović, Ana Marija Miličević, Marko Granić, Lana Bergman, Jasminka Peršec, Knowledge, Awareness, and Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Students of Biomedical Faculties: A Cross-Sectional Study, 2025, 13, 2304-6767, 28, 10.3390/dj13010028 | |
83. | Stephanie A. Davey, James Elander, Amelia Woodward, Michael G. Head, Daniel Gaffiero, Understanding barriers to influenza vaccination among parents is important to improve vaccine uptake among children, 2025, 21, 2164-5515, 10.1080/21645515.2025.2457198 | |
84. | Saheed Dipo Isiaka, Dapo Awobeku, Akolade Uthman Jimoh, Mahfus Dauda, Olugbemisola Wuraola Samuel, Stephen Olabode Asaolu, Oluwafisayo Azeez Ayodeji, Sunday Atobatele, Segun Adenipekun, Chukwudinma Okoh, Zubair Adegoke, Sidney Sampson, Roles of mobile teams in tracing lost to follow–up clients: evidence from the optimization of COVID-19 vaccination uptake and routine immunization in Ekiti State, 2025, 25, 1472-6963, 10.1186/s12913-025-12319-2 | |
85. | R. Geethanjali, A. Valarmathi, 2024, Deep Learning Approach to COVID-19 Misinformation on Social Media with Multimodal and Multilingual Deep COVID-Fake Sense Model, 979-8-3315-2963-5, 570, 10.1109/ICUIS64676.2024.10867214 | |
86. | Megan Hay, Anika Teichert, Sarah Kilz, Agnes Vosen, Resilience in the Vaccine Supply Chain: Learning from the COVID-19 Pandemic, 2025, 13, 2076-393X, 142, 10.3390/vaccines13020142 | |
87. | Guang Yang, Liyu Zhao, Yuan Liang, Zhidan Wang, Shadows of Deception: Unveiling the Dominance of Source Versus Recipient in the Perceived Credibility of Misinformation, 2025, 1751-2786, 1, 10.1080/17512786.2025.2464192 | |
88. | Hedviga Tkácová, Challenges of Misinformation in Online Learning: A Post-Pandemic Perspective, 2025, 5, 2673-8392, 25, 10.3390/encyclopedia5010025 | |
89. | Halyna Padalko, Vasyl Chomko, Sergiy Yakovlev, Dmytro Chumachenko, A Novel Comprehensive Framework for Detecting and Understanding Health-Related Misinformation, 2025, 16, 2078-2489, 175, 10.3390/info16030175 | |
90. | Elisabeth Wilhelm, Victoria Vivilaki, Jean Calleja-Agius, Elena Petelos, Maria Tzeli, Paraskevi Giaxi, Elena Triantiafyllou, Eleni Asimaki, Faye Alevizou, Tina D Purnat, Effects of the Modern Digital Information Environment on Maternal Health Care Professionals, the Role of Midwives, and the People in Their Care: Scoping Review, 2025, 27, 1438-8871, e70108, 10.2196/70108 | |
91. | Hai Li, Jingyi Huang, Mengmeng Ji, Yuyi Yang, Ruopeng An, Use of Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Model for COVID-19 Fact-Checking (Preprint), 2024, 1438-8871, 10.2196/66098 | |
92. | Wael M. S. Yafooz, Yousef Al-Gumaei, Abdullah Alsaeedi, Satria Mandala, 2025, Chapter 6, 978-3-031-80333-8, 105, 10.1007/978-3-031-80334-5_6 | |
93. | Jerry Chongyi Hu, Mohammed Shahid Modi, Boleslaw K. Szymanski, Using LLMs to Infer Non-Binary COVID-19 Sentiments of Chinese Microbloggers, 2025, 27, 1099-4300, 290, 10.3390/e27030290 | |
94. | Michael A. Poerio, Erik Stengler, 2025, Chapter 15, 978-981-96-1288-8, 301, 10.1007/978-981-96-1289-5_15 | |
95. | Kelly Y.L Ku, Jiarui Li, Yueming Luo, Yunya Song, Correction approaches and hashtag framing in addressing Mpox misinformation on Instagram, 2025, 40, 0268-1153, 10.1093/her/cyaf009 | |
96. | Liz Salmi, Jan Walker, Tom Delbanco, Catherine M DesRoches, Robert F Kennedy Jr’s proposal to remove public commentary from US health policy is a threat to science and public health, 2025, 1756-1833, r676, 10.1136/bmj.r676 | |
97. | Abara Erim, Sunday Oko, Sonia Biose, Kemisola Agbaoye, Okechi Eberechukwu Nzedibe, Anwuli Nwankwo, Patrick Gimba, Vivianne Ihekweazu, Tackling infectious disease outbreak and vaccination misinformation: a community-based strategy in Niger State, Nigeria, 2025, 25, 1472-6963, 10.1186/s12913-025-12683-z | |
98. | Tiegue Vieira Rodrigues, Navigating the Fake News Environment: Enhancing Media Literacy in the Digital Age, 2025, 13, 2411-2933, 18, 10.31686/ijier.vol13.iss1.4249 | |
99. | Caitlin Ford, Hinna Hasan, Madison Fullerton, Janette Wong, Margaret Pateman, Hao Ming Chen, Theresa Tang, Jia Hu, Kirsten Cornelson, Leveraging Canadian healthcare worker volunteers to address COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on Facebook: A qualitative program evaluation (Preprint), 2024, 1438-8871, 10.2196/65361 | |
100. | Alexandre Hudon, Keith Perry, Anne-Sophie Plate, Alexis Doucet, Laurence Ducharme, Orielle Djona, Constanza Testart Aguirre, Gabrielle Evoy, Navigating the Maze of Social Media Disinformation on Psychiatric Illness and Charting Paths to Reliable Information for Mental Health Professionals : An Observational Analysis (Preprint), 2024, 1438-8871, 10.2196/64225 | |
101. | Samuel Olusegun Itodo, Stephen Olaide Aremu, Jeremiah John Oloche, Samuel Ali Agada, Edwin Inalegwu Alonyenu, Miracle Chekwube Itodo, Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy among the working population in urban areas of Benue State, North-Central Nigeria, 2025, 22, 3005-0774, 10.1186/s12982-025-00597-4 | |
102. | Enrique Fernández-Vilas, Juan R. Coca, Juan José Labora González, Marcos Iglesias Carrera, The Sociology of Suicide After COVID-19: Assessment of the Spanish Case, 2025, 15, 2076-328X, 606, 10.3390/bs15050606 | |
103. | Sudip Bhattacharya, Alok Singh, Unravelling the infodemic: a systematic review of misinformation dynamics during the COVID-19 pandemic, 2025, 10, 2297-900X, 10.3389/fcomm.2025.1560936 | |
104. | Gabriel Andrade, 2025, Chapter 1, 978-3-031-89664-4, 1, 10.1007/978-3-031-89665-1_1 | |
105. | Robert Chapman, Micha Frazer-Carroll, 2025, Chapter 8, 978-3-031-63660-8, 121, 10.1007/978-3-031-63661-5_8 | |
106. | Guo Zeqi, Ouyang Jihong, Li Ximing, Li Changchun, Task-oriented Multi-domain Adversarial Network for fake news detection, 2025, 177, 15684946, 113227, 10.1016/j.asoc.2025.113227 | |
107. | Esther Ortega‐Martin, Javier Alvarez‐Galvez, Living With Long COVID: Everyday Experiences, Health Information Barriers and Patients' Quality of Life, 2025, 28, 1369-6513, 10.1111/hex.70290 | |
108. | Saeid Ghavami, Securitising science: the COVID-19 crisis and vaccine politics in Iran, 2025, 2374-4235, 1, 10.1080/23744235.2025.2501603 |
Authors/date | Aim of study/paper | Type of study/information | Main findings/conclusions |
Islam N, Jdanov DA (2023) [7] | To examine how mortality estimates from England and Wales, Spain, and Italy were influenced by population age and sex | Cross-sectional study | • The greatest predictor of death is age, which is also linked to multimorbidity, which affects mortality in and of itself. • Another important element is sex. Because women typically live longer than men do in most nations, women are overrepresented in older age groups. For instance, the ratio of women to men aged 65 or over was 54:46 in England and Wales in 2020. • Women in Spain, not Italy, had the lowest age-standardized mortality, whereas English women continued to have the worst. |
Danielsen AC, Lee KM, Boulicault M, et al. (2022) [8] | To study sex disparities in COVID-19 cases and mortalities across U.S. states, derived from the unique 13-month dataset of the U.S. Gender/Sex COVID-19 Data Tracker. | Longitudinal study | • The findings show that the gender gap in COVID-19 cases and deaths varies significantly over time and between states. • According to these statistics, there appears to be a small sex discrepancy when it does exist, and it probably fluctuates depending on context-sensitive factors including occupation, race/ethnicity, health practices, and other indicators of social experience. |
Grande E, Fedeli U, Pappagallo M, et al. (2022) [9] | To investigate cause-specific mortality in Italy from March 2020 to April 2020 and the variation in mortality rates compared with those in 2015–2019 regarding sex, age, and epidemic area. | Cross-sectional study | • Results reveal impact of Covid-19 pandemic on cause-specific mortality from March 2020 to April 2020, including age, gender, and territorial differences. An excess of deaths for influenza and pneumonia in the months of March and April was observed in the US. Air pollution might explain the observed geographical pattern of the increase in mortality for COVID-19 in Italy. In the younger age groups, especially in males, there was an excess in mortality from pneumonia and other respiratory diseases, suggesting an underestimation of COVID-19 cases. |
Kharroubi SA, Diab-El-Harake M (2022) [10] | To investigate potential sex differences in lifestyle factors and clinical comorbidities among diagnosed patients, as well as the socioeconomic features of COVID-19 male and female patients. | Retrospective cohort study | • Significant sex-dependent differences were found in the COVID-19 risk variables and illness comorbidities using a sizable US population. After controlling for important factors including age, education, and ethnicity, male patients in particular had a high frequency of underlying comorbidities, such as abnormal clinical and lab results, hypertensive disorders, and diabetes. • This study suggests that comprehending the disparities in patient outcomes across male and female cohorts would facilitate the development of a gender equity responsive strategy for the COVID-19 pandemic and augment the efficacy of medical practice, legislation, and interventions. |
Yoshida Y, Chu S, Fox S, et al. (2022) [11] | To examine the association of comorbidities, inflammatory biomarkers, and severe outcomes in men and women hospitalized for COVID-19. | A retrospective cohort analysis | • Inpatient mortality varies by gender and is correlated with comorbidities and biomarkers. Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, the four most common fatal comorbidities were moderate to severe liver disease, renal disease, metastatic solid tumor, and myocardial infarction. These four coexisting conditions continued to be the most deadly in both sexes, with women at a larger risk than males. Procalcitonin and NT proBNP were the best predictors of mortality, with abnormal increases of CRP, ferritin, procalcitonin, NT proBNP, neutrophil and platelet counts, and lymphocytopenia strongly linked to the risk of death. |
Péterfi A, Mészáros Á, Szarvas Z, et al. (2022) [12] | A systematic search on PubMed for articles published between 2019 and 2021 to identify any cohort and case-control studies that investigated the relationship of comorbidities and COVID-19 mortality among the elderly, defined as 60 years of age and above. | Systematic review | • According to the included studies, there is a correlation between higher mortality rates in populations of elderly and the prevalence of specific disorders as diabetes, cancer, respiratory, kidney, cardiovascular, and nervous system diseases. Possible mechanisms include SARS-CoV-2 virus attacks endothelial cells, causing damage to tiny arteries and encouraging microvascular dysfunction, inflammation, and thrombosis. As a condition worsens, the link between comorbidities and COVID-19 mortality in the elderly may alter, with stronger observed effect sizes as the disease advances. |
Dorrucci M, Minelli G, Boros S, et al. (2021) [13] | To compare all-cause excess mortality between the two waves that occurred during the year 2020 using nationwide data. | Cross-sectional study | • Similar to other European countries, the COVID-19 pandemic scenario in Italy can be summed up in three phases: a first wave that began at the end of February and ended at the end of May, marked by a sharp increase in cases and deaths as well as a high territorial concentration, primarily in the north of the country; a transitional phase that began in June and ended in mid-September, with low viral diffusion; and a second wave that began at the end of September 2020 and continued until the first half of November before the cases again declined. Men presented a higher mortality risk than women during the second wave, even though not significantly. The highest contribution to excess mortality during the whole period covered by this study was observed among people aged 80 years and older, with a further increase during the second wave. |
Mahmoud M, Carmisciano L, Tagliafico L, et al. (2021) [14] | To identify the chronic clinical conditions and the comorbidity clusters associated with in-hospital mortality in a cohort of older COVID-19 patients who were admitted to the IRCCS Policlinico San Martino Hospital, Genoa, Italy, between January and April 2020. | This was a retrospective cohort study including 219 consecutive patients aged 70 years or older and is part of the GECOVID-19 study group. | • According to the findings, individuals with dementia and cerebrovascular illness had higher mortality rates connected to COVID-19, and these disorders continued to have an independent relationship with all-cause in-hospital mortality. Specifically, this may be due to a higher likelihood of hospitalization, the requirement for intensive care, and mortality when heart failure, metabolic disorders, stroke, and dementia among patients with these comorbidities. In addition, the inflammatory response may be involved in the worsened clinical course of COVID-19 in older and frail patients. |
Chang WH (2020) [15] | To understand whether women belong to a high-risk group or a group with weak resistance. | Review article | • Women outperform men in terms of illness incidence and fatality. The primary cause is that women's immune systems are stronger than men's, in addition to their own hormonal defenses. In addition, women observe safety precautions more strictly and engage in more protective behavior (such as hand washing), which significantly lowers the risk of infection. |
Griffith DM, Sharma G, Holliday CS, et al. (2020) [16] | To understand the disproportionate death rate among men using a biopsychosocial approach. | Commentary | • Biological factors: Women often develop higher innate and adaptive immunological responses than men because the X chromosome has a high number of immune-related genes. Sex hormones including progesterone, estrogen, and androgens, as well as sex chromosomal genes, contribute to this unequal control of immunological responses in men and women. • Psychosocial and behavioral factors: Men are more likely than women to participate in high-risk activities that increase their chance of getting COVID-19 including higher rates of tobacco use and alcohol consumption. For example, men are less likely than women to have stated that they have been avoiding intimate physical contact with people or big public gatherings. Additionally, men are less likely than women to efficiently seek medical assistance, wear masks, and wash their hands. • Other factors include age and geography. For example, a US study showed that although older men perceived their risks of COVID-19 to be higher than those of younger men, older men made the fewest behavior changes across age and gender groups. • There are variations in occupational risk for men and women. In the United States, a larger number of women are employed as social and healthcare workers. However, men are more likely to be low-skilled or low-paid occupations (e.g., food processing, transportation, delivery, warehousing), which are associated with a greater risk of mortality. |
Scortichini M, Schneider dos Santos R, De'Donato F, et al. (2020) [17] | To analyze the excess mortality across the 107 Italian provinces, stratified by sex, age group and period of the outbreak. | Cross-sectional study | • The impact was slightly higher in men compared with women. The risk varied by age, with the highest excess mortality in the group of people aged 70–79 years old and with a lower but measurable risk evident in those aged <60. The analysis by week reveals varied patterns, with the risk restricted to a shorter time frame (March to mid-April) in Central and Southern Italy, and more delayed affects in women and the elderly. These variations are probably caused by the lockdown rules were implemented and by the contributions of differential risk pathways, which include deaths directly linked to COVID-19 and indirect deaths from other causes including disturbances in the healthcare system. |
Raparelli V, Palmieri L, Canevelli M. (2020) [18] | A sex-stratified analysis to examine variations in the clinical course and presentation between male and female COVID-19 fatality cases in Italy. | Cross-sectional study | • In the current analysis, men and women experienced distinct clinical symptoms and care transitions. Compared to women, men's COVID-19-related mortality was associated with different clinical symptoms and treatment transitions. Even though this elderly cohort had a high overall burden of multimorbidity, males were more likely than women to have IHD, COPD, and CKD, whereas women were more likely to have dementia and autoimmune disorders. Men were more likely than women to experience the clinical symptoms of COVID-19 death, such as fever as a sign of start and the incidence of AKI. |
Sanyaolu A, Okorie C, Marinkovic A, et al. (2020) [19] | To examine the comorbid conditions, the progression of the disease, and mortality rates in patients of all ages, infected with the ongoing COVID-19 disease. | Electronic literature review search | • Patients with COVID-19 disease who have comorbidities, such as hypertension or diabetes mellitus, are more likely to develop a more severe course and progression of the disease. • Older patients, especially those 65 years old and above who have comorbidities and are infected, have an increased admission rate into the intensive care unit (ICU) and mortality from the COVID-19 disease. |
Authors/date | Aim of study/paper | Type of study/information | Main findings/conclusions |
Islam N, Jdanov DA (2023) [7] | To examine how mortality estimates from England and Wales, Spain, and Italy were influenced by population age and sex | Cross-sectional study | • The greatest predictor of death is age, which is also linked to multimorbidity, which affects mortality in and of itself. • Another important element is sex. Because women typically live longer than men do in most nations, women are overrepresented in older age groups. For instance, the ratio of women to men aged 65 or over was 54:46 in England and Wales in 2020. • Women in Spain, not Italy, had the lowest age-standardized mortality, whereas English women continued to have the worst. |
Danielsen AC, Lee KM, Boulicault M, et al. (2022) [8] | To study sex disparities in COVID-19 cases and mortalities across U.S. states, derived from the unique 13-month dataset of the U.S. Gender/Sex COVID-19 Data Tracker. | Longitudinal study | • The findings show that the gender gap in COVID-19 cases and deaths varies significantly over time and between states. • According to these statistics, there appears to be a small sex discrepancy when it does exist, and it probably fluctuates depending on context-sensitive factors including occupation, race/ethnicity, health practices, and other indicators of social experience. |
Grande E, Fedeli U, Pappagallo M, et al. (2022) [9] | To investigate cause-specific mortality in Italy from March 2020 to April 2020 and the variation in mortality rates compared with those in 2015–2019 regarding sex, age, and epidemic area. | Cross-sectional study | • Results reveal impact of Covid-19 pandemic on cause-specific mortality from March 2020 to April 2020, including age, gender, and territorial differences. An excess of deaths for influenza and pneumonia in the months of March and April was observed in the US. Air pollution might explain the observed geographical pattern of the increase in mortality for COVID-19 in Italy. In the younger age groups, especially in males, there was an excess in mortality from pneumonia and other respiratory diseases, suggesting an underestimation of COVID-19 cases. |
Kharroubi SA, Diab-El-Harake M (2022) [10] | To investigate potential sex differences in lifestyle factors and clinical comorbidities among diagnosed patients, as well as the socioeconomic features of COVID-19 male and female patients. | Retrospective cohort study | • Significant sex-dependent differences were found in the COVID-19 risk variables and illness comorbidities using a sizable US population. After controlling for important factors including age, education, and ethnicity, male patients in particular had a high frequency of underlying comorbidities, such as abnormal clinical and lab results, hypertensive disorders, and diabetes. • This study suggests that comprehending the disparities in patient outcomes across male and female cohorts would facilitate the development of a gender equity responsive strategy for the COVID-19 pandemic and augment the efficacy of medical practice, legislation, and interventions. |
Yoshida Y, Chu S, Fox S, et al. (2022) [11] | To examine the association of comorbidities, inflammatory biomarkers, and severe outcomes in men and women hospitalized for COVID-19. | A retrospective cohort analysis | • Inpatient mortality varies by gender and is correlated with comorbidities and biomarkers. Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, the four most common fatal comorbidities were moderate to severe liver disease, renal disease, metastatic solid tumor, and myocardial infarction. These four coexisting conditions continued to be the most deadly in both sexes, with women at a larger risk than males. Procalcitonin and NT proBNP were the best predictors of mortality, with abnormal increases of CRP, ferritin, procalcitonin, NT proBNP, neutrophil and platelet counts, and lymphocytopenia strongly linked to the risk of death. |
Péterfi A, Mészáros Á, Szarvas Z, et al. (2022) [12] | A systematic search on PubMed for articles published between 2019 and 2021 to identify any cohort and case-control studies that investigated the relationship of comorbidities and COVID-19 mortality among the elderly, defined as 60 years of age and above. | Systematic review | • According to the included studies, there is a correlation between higher mortality rates in populations of elderly and the prevalence of specific disorders as diabetes, cancer, respiratory, kidney, cardiovascular, and nervous system diseases. Possible mechanisms include SARS-CoV-2 virus attacks endothelial cells, causing damage to tiny arteries and encouraging microvascular dysfunction, inflammation, and thrombosis. As a condition worsens, the link between comorbidities and COVID-19 mortality in the elderly may alter, with stronger observed effect sizes as the disease advances. |
Dorrucci M, Minelli G, Boros S, et al. (2021) [13] | To compare all-cause excess mortality between the two waves that occurred during the year 2020 using nationwide data. | Cross-sectional study | • Similar to other European countries, the COVID-19 pandemic scenario in Italy can be summed up in three phases: a first wave that began at the end of February and ended at the end of May, marked by a sharp increase in cases and deaths as well as a high territorial concentration, primarily in the north of the country; a transitional phase that began in June and ended in mid-September, with low viral diffusion; and a second wave that began at the end of September 2020 and continued until the first half of November before the cases again declined. Men presented a higher mortality risk than women during the second wave, even though not significantly. The highest contribution to excess mortality during the whole period covered by this study was observed among people aged 80 years and older, with a further increase during the second wave. |
Mahmoud M, Carmisciano L, Tagliafico L, et al. (2021) [14] | To identify the chronic clinical conditions and the comorbidity clusters associated with in-hospital mortality in a cohort of older COVID-19 patients who were admitted to the IRCCS Policlinico San Martino Hospital, Genoa, Italy, between January and April 2020. | This was a retrospective cohort study including 219 consecutive patients aged 70 years or older and is part of the GECOVID-19 study group. | • According to the findings, individuals with dementia and cerebrovascular illness had higher mortality rates connected to COVID-19, and these disorders continued to have an independent relationship with all-cause in-hospital mortality. Specifically, this may be due to a higher likelihood of hospitalization, the requirement for intensive care, and mortality when heart failure, metabolic disorders, stroke, and dementia among patients with these comorbidities. In addition, the inflammatory response may be involved in the worsened clinical course of COVID-19 in older and frail patients. |
Chang WH (2020) [15] | To understand whether women belong to a high-risk group or a group with weak resistance. | Review article | • Women outperform men in terms of illness incidence and fatality. The primary cause is that women's immune systems are stronger than men's, in addition to their own hormonal defenses. In addition, women observe safety precautions more strictly and engage in more protective behavior (such as hand washing), which significantly lowers the risk of infection. |
Griffith DM, Sharma G, Holliday CS, et al. (2020) [16] | To understand the disproportionate death rate among men using a biopsychosocial approach. | Commentary | • Biological factors: Women often develop higher innate and adaptive immunological responses than men because the X chromosome has a high number of immune-related genes. Sex hormones including progesterone, estrogen, and androgens, as well as sex chromosomal genes, contribute to this unequal control of immunological responses in men and women. • Psychosocial and behavioral factors: Men are more likely than women to participate in high-risk activities that increase their chance of getting COVID-19 including higher rates of tobacco use and alcohol consumption. For example, men are less likely than women to have stated that they have been avoiding intimate physical contact with people or big public gatherings. Additionally, men are less likely than women to efficiently seek medical assistance, wear masks, and wash their hands. • Other factors include age and geography. For example, a US study showed that although older men perceived their risks of COVID-19 to be higher than those of younger men, older men made the fewest behavior changes across age and gender groups. • There are variations in occupational risk for men and women. In the United States, a larger number of women are employed as social and healthcare workers. However, men are more likely to be low-skilled or low-paid occupations (e.g., food processing, transportation, delivery, warehousing), which are associated with a greater risk of mortality. |
Scortichini M, Schneider dos Santos R, De'Donato F, et al. (2020) [17] | To analyze the excess mortality across the 107 Italian provinces, stratified by sex, age group and period of the outbreak. | Cross-sectional study | • The impact was slightly higher in men compared with women. The risk varied by age, with the highest excess mortality in the group of people aged 70–79 years old and with a lower but measurable risk evident in those aged <60. The analysis by week reveals varied patterns, with the risk restricted to a shorter time frame (March to mid-April) in Central and Southern Italy, and more delayed affects in women and the elderly. These variations are probably caused by the lockdown rules were implemented and by the contributions of differential risk pathways, which include deaths directly linked to COVID-19 and indirect deaths from other causes including disturbances in the healthcare system. |
Raparelli V, Palmieri L, Canevelli M. (2020) [18] | A sex-stratified analysis to examine variations in the clinical course and presentation between male and female COVID-19 fatality cases in Italy. | Cross-sectional study | • In the current analysis, men and women experienced distinct clinical symptoms and care transitions. Compared to women, men's COVID-19-related mortality was associated with different clinical symptoms and treatment transitions. Even though this elderly cohort had a high overall burden of multimorbidity, males were more likely than women to have IHD, COPD, and CKD, whereas women were more likely to have dementia and autoimmune disorders. Men were more likely than women to experience the clinical symptoms of COVID-19 death, such as fever as a sign of start and the incidence of AKI. |
Sanyaolu A, Okorie C, Marinkovic A, et al. (2020) [19] | To examine the comorbid conditions, the progression of the disease, and mortality rates in patients of all ages, infected with the ongoing COVID-19 disease. | Electronic literature review search | • Patients with COVID-19 disease who have comorbidities, such as hypertension or diabetes mellitus, are more likely to develop a more severe course and progression of the disease. • Older patients, especially those 65 years old and above who have comorbidities and are infected, have an increased admission rate into the intensive care unit (ICU) and mortality from the COVID-19 disease. |