MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250163220 · doi:10.1101/2020.05.05.20092023

Mental Health Impact of COVID-19: A global study of risk and resilience factors

2020· preprint· en· W4250163220 on OpenAlexaff
Martyna Beata Płomecka, Susanna Gobbi, Rachael Neckels, Piotr Radziński, Beata Skórko, Samuel Lazzeri, Kristina Almazidou, Alisa Dedić, Asja Bakalović, Lejla Hrustić, Zainab Ashraf, Sarvin Es haghi, Verena Waller, Hafsa Jabeen, A. Beyza, Mehdi A Behnam, Dana Shibli, Zofia Baranczuk‐Turska, Zeeshan Haq, Salah U. Qureshi, Adriana M. Strutt, Ali Jawaid

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersFundacja na rzecz Nauki Polskiej
KeywordsOptimismCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Mental healthPandemicPsychological resiliencePsychology2019-20 coronavirus outbreakEnvironmental healthSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)PsychiatryMedicineDemographyDiseaseGerontologyClinical psychologySocial psychologySociologyVirologyOutbreakInfectious disease (medical specialty)Internal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study anonymously screened 13,332 individuals worldwide for psychological symptoms related to Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic from March 29 th to April 14 th , 2020. A total of n=12,817 responses were considered valid with responses from 12 featured countries and five WHO regions. Female gender, pre-existing psychiatric condition, and prior exposure to trauma were identified as notable risk factors, whereas optimism, ability to share concerns with family and friends like usual, positive prediction about COVID-19, and daily exercise predicted fewer psychological symptoms. These results could aid in dynamic optimization of mental health services during and following COVID-19 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)0.001
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.387 · 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

Citations47
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207