The investigators used the All of Us Registered Tier Dataset v9 to study coding and prediction of Long COVID in adults. They identified 23,790 adults with documented COVID-19 and compared coded shares in electronic health records (EHRs) to population prevalence estimates from the Household Pulse Survey. For the prediction task, the analytic sample comprised 23,300 adults who lacked a Long COVID code by day 90 after infection; the outcome was the first assignment of the diagnosis code U09.9 by day 455.
The study is a preprint and was conducted under the All of Us Research Program protocol; the authors note that results have not been peer reviewed. Aggregate tables, figures, code, and the released models are publicly accessible on the authors' GitHub repository, and the All of Us dataset is available to authorized researchers through the Researcher Workbench.
The team compared EHR-coded Long COVID prevalence with federal survey estimates under explicit survey-comparability assumptions. Data indicated substantial undercoding: about one in nine adults who ever had Long COVID carried its diagnostic code in the EHRs examined. The authors also reported a sex disparity in coding frequency: the women-to-men coding ratio was 0.79, with a 95% sensitivity interval of 0.65 to 0.95. These figures derive from the authors' comparability assumptions; the paper emphasises that coded outcomes must be interpreted in that framework.
The study team framed a practical challenge: can a predictor of later Long COVID coding be rebuilt outside the secure enclave using only the aggregate counts that the enclave releases? To answer, they reconstructed two models from released counts—naive Bayes and linear discriminant—and compared these with an elastic net model that they fitted inside the enclave using identical patient-level features and the same analytic cohort.
The models trained from released counts were designed so any researcher could reproduce them using the publicly released statistics. The prediction outcome was binary: first appearance of U09.9 by day 455 among patients uncoded at day 90. The authors provided reproducible materials, including two released models and a notebook to regenerate the aggregate statistics and figures.
Model evaluation used a random 20% patient test set and an external-like validation consisting of 18 held-out EHR sites. The patient-level test set included 4,680 patients with 50 coded events; the held-out sites contributed 5,760 patients with 60 coded events.
Reported discrimination for the models built from released counts produced AUROCs of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.60–0.75) on the patient test and 0.64 (0.55–0.72) at held-out sites. The authors calculated that these AUROCs were 0.049 higher (0.001–0.104) than the elastic net fitted inside the enclave. For precision-recall metrics, the elastic net outperformed on the patient test: area under the precision-recall curve favored the elastic net by 0.062 (0.003–0.122).
These performance numbers are presented with their reported confidence intervals and event counts; the authors emphasise moderate discrimination rather than high predictive accuracy.
The investigators noted a calibration issue when applying probabilities reconstructed from released counts to held-out sites. Specifically, the released probabilities tended to overestimate the risk of later coding at these held-out EHR sites. The paper reports that fitting models from released aggregate counts did not consistently reduce discrimination; however, calibration varied across sites, and the overestimation signal was measurable in the held-out evaluation.
The authors stressed that model-based discrimination for coded Long COVID depends on the stated coding assumptions: models predict who will receive a code under current clinical and documentation practices, not who actually has biologically defined Long COVID cases independent of coding behavior.
The authors made the aggregate statistics behind every table and figure available, together with code and a notebook that regenerate results; these materials are hosted at the project GitHub. They also linked public sources for the Household Pulse Survey and Medicare data used in comparisons. The manuscript is a medRxiv preprint and has not completed peer review.
Limitations documented by the authors include dependence on survey-comparability assumptions for undercoding estimates and the observed miscalibration of released-count probabilities at held-out sites. The paper did not report additional methodological details beyond those in the abstract about feature engineering, exact variable lists, or model hyperparameters outside what is available in the public code repository. Questions that remain, as the authors indicate, include how differences in local documentation practices influence coding rates and how prediction performance would change under different outcome definitions or with richer patient-level data.