MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201168046 · doi:10.2147/nss.s324142

How our Dreams Changed During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Effects and Correlates of Dream Recall Frequency - a Multinational Study on 19,355 Adults

2021· article· en· W3201168046 on OpenAlexaff
Eirin Fränkl, Serena Scarpelli, Michael R. Nadorff, Bjørn Bjorvatn, Courtney J. Bolstad, Ngan Yin Chan, Frances Chung, Yves Dauvilliers, Colin A. Espie, Yuichi Inoue, Damien Léger, Tainá Macêdo, Kentaro Matsui, Ilona Merikanto, Charles M. Morin, Sérgio Mota‐Rolim, Markku Partinen, Thomas Penzel, Giuseppe Plazzi, Mariusz Siemiński, Yun Kwok Wing, Luigi De Gennaro, Brigitte Holzinger

Bibliographic record

VenueNature and Science of Sleep · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of TorontoInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de QuébecCanada Research ChairsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Dream2019-20 coronavirus outbreakRecallMultinational corporationSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)VirologyInternal medicineOutbreakCognitive psychologyDiseaseLawInfectious disease (medical specialty)Neuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Many have reported odd dreams during the pandemic. Given that dreams are associated with mental health, understanding these changes could provide crucial information about wellbeing during the pandemic. This study explored associations between COVID-19 and dream recall frequency (DRF), and related social, health, and mental health factors. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional web survey of 19,355 individuals in 14 countries from May to July 2020. We collected data on COVID-19, mental health, sleep and DRF during the pandemic. We performed McNemar Tests to compare low (<3 nights per week) and high DRF (≥3 nights per week) before and during COVID-19 and to evaluate changes in sleep variables segmented by DRF. Chi-square tests were conducted to compare characteristics between low and high DRF. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine associations between various independent variables and DRF. RESULTS: Reports of high DRF during the pandemic were higher than before the pandemic (P<0.001). Female gender (aOR=1.25, 95% CI 1.10-1.41), nightmares (aOR=4.22, 95% CI 3.45-5.17), sleep talking (aOR= 2.36, 1.73-3.23), sleep maintenance problems (aOR=1.34, 95% CI 1.15-1.56), symptoms of REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD; aOR=1.24, 95% CI 1.09-1.41) and repeated disturbing thoughts (posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms) were associated with high DRF. Age group 55-64 years (aOR=0.69, 95% CI 0.58-0.83) reported less high DRF than younger participants. Unadjusted OR showed associations between depression, anxiety, and DRF; however, in adjusted regression depression (aOR= 0.71, 0.59-0.86) and anxiety (aOR=0.79, 95% CI 0.66-0.94) were negatively associated with high DRF. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: DRF was higher than pre-pandemic levels across four continents. DRF was associated with gender and parasomnias like nightmares and RBD symptoms, sleep maintenance problems, PTSD symptoms and negatively associated with depression and anxiety. The results implicate that COVID-19 is reflected in our dreams as an expression of the emotional intensity of the pandemic.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.328
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations44
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature and Science of SleepSame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207