MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148469445 · doi:10.1177/070674370404900607

Stress and Psychological Impact on SARS Patients during the Outbreak

2004· article· en· W2148469445 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Siew E. Chua, Vinci Cheung, Gráinne McAlonan, Charlton Cheung, Josephine WS Wong, Erik P.T. Cheung, Marco T. Y. Chan, Teresa Wong, Khai M Choy, Chung‐Ming Chu, Peter W. H. Lee, Kenneth W. Tsang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen Mary University of London
KeywordsMedicineOutbreakMoodPsychological stressPneumoniaPsychiatryClinical psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine stress and psychological impact in severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) patients during the 2003 outbreak. SARS is a novel, highly infectious pneumonia, and its psychological impact is still unclear. METHOD: At the peak of the outbreak, SARS patients (n = 79) and healthy control subjects (n = 145) completed the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) and documented a range of psychological responses. Groups were balanced for age, sex, education, and living circumstances. RESULTS: Stress was significantly higher in SARS patients than in healthy control subjects. Stress correlated significantly with negative psychological effects. Of SARS patients, 39% (n = 30) were infected health care workers; these individuals reported significantly more fatigue and worries about health than did other patients. Of patients, 25% (n = 20) requested psychological follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: General stress and negative psychological effects are increased in SARS patients, particularly among infected health care workers. This may increase the risk of mood and stress-related disorders. Functional impairment is apparent in the postrecovery phase.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations264
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207