MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4240190503 · doi:10.31219/osf.io/g43vn

The Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Stress, Health, Relationships, and Medications for Older Adults Living with HIV in Palm Springs

2020· preprint· en· W4240190503 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Annie L. Nguyen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicLogistic regressionMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DemographyQuarter (Canadian coin)GerontologyCross-sectional studyDistancingHealth careHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Environmental healthFamily medicineInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cross-sectional, internet-based surveys were conducted to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on daily stress for older adults living with HIV in Palm Springs, CA (N=100). Participants’ mean age was 64.2, most were non-Hispanic white (88.0%), men (96.0%) and identified as gay or lesbian (93.0%). Respondents reported high compliance with physical distancing (96.0%) and mask wearing (98.0%). One-third of respondents experienced financial challenges. A quarter (24.0%) skipped a dose of their HIV medication during COVID-19 and many experienced disruptions to their healthcare (46.0%). Decreases in the quality of relationships with friends was reported by 40.7% of respondents. DSM criteria for PTSD was met by 22.0%. Younger (ages 51-63) respondents were significantly more likely to report financial challenges, miss HIV medication doses, and have higher PTSD severity scores. In an adjusted logistic regression, higher PTSD severity scores and disruption to healthcare were associated with missing doses (p’s <.05).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCOVID-19 and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→