MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158001327 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsab072.198

199 COVID-19 Pandemic Sleep and Dreams at the US-Mexico Border

2021· article· en· W3158001327 on OpenAlexaff
Luz Isalva, Dora Valencia, Sadia Ghani, Marcos Delgadillo, Célyne Bastien, Purnima Madhivanan, Karl Krupp, John Ruiz, William D. S. Killgore, Chloe Wills, Michael A. Grandner

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsomniaDemographyDreamPsychologyMental healthPandemicPopulationRelative riskSleep (system call)PsychiatryMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Confidence intervalInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the border region is not well-described, including the impact of pandemic-related sleep disturbances on dream experiences, despite frequent reports of meaningful changes to dreams in the population. Methods Participants were 155 individuals who completed the Nogales Cardiometabolic Health and Sleep (NOCHES) Study and a COVID sub-study (95% Hispanic/Latino). Participants were asked whether, as a result of the pandemic, they have experienced more schedule regularity, improved/worsened sleep, more initial or middle-of-the-night insomnia, more sleepiness, and more napping. They were also asked whether they experienced more, fewer, or the same amount of dreams in general, positive dreams, and negative dreams. Multinomial logistic regressions were used to examine overall, positive, and negative dream recall (more or less vs same) as outcome and perceived change in sleep as independent variable, adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomics, and mental health symptoms (assessed with PHQ4). Results Those who reported more schedule regularity were less likely to report more negative dreams (Relative Risk Ratio [RRR]=0.40, p=0.010). Those who reported improved sleep were also more likely to report more positive dreams (RRR=3.97, p=0.004). Those with worsened sleep were more likely to report fewer dreams overall (RRR=2.23, p=0.037), fewer positive dreams (RRR=2.24, p=0.003) and more negative dreams (RRR=3.69, p<0.0005). Those with more initial insomnia were more likely to report fewer positive dreams (RRR=2.43, p=0.002) and more negative dreams (RRR=4.12, p<0.0005). Those with more middle-of-the-night insomnia reported fewer dreams overall (RRR=2.35, p=0.018), fewer positive dreams (RRR=2.55, p=0.001), and more negative dreams (RRR=5.01, p<0.0005). Those with more daytime sleepiness were more likely to report fewer dreams overall (RRR=4.75, p<0.0005), fewer positive dreams (RRR=1.92, p=0.019), and more negative dreams (RRR=3.91, p<0.0005), and were less likely to report more positive dreams (RRR=0.26, p=0.018). Those who reported napping more were more likely to report fewer dreams overall (RRR=2.78, p=0.008), fewer positive dreams (RRR=2.10, P=0.008), and more negative dreams (RRR=2.83, p=0.003), and were less likely to report more positive dreams (RRR=0.16, p=0.004). Conclusion Those whose sleep worsened due to the pandemic reported less dream recall, and dream content that was more negative and less positive overall. Support (if any) R01MD011600, R01DA051321

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.301 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207