MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4283833695 · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-15695-5

An intersectional approach to identifying factors associated with anxiety and depression following the COVID-19 pandemic

2022· article· en· W4283833695 on OpenAlexafffund
Hoda Seens, Ze Lu, James Fraser, Joy C. MacDermid, David M. Walton, Ruby Grewal

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphSt Joseph's Health CareMcMaster UniversityLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPandemicAnxietyMental healthDepression (economics)Patient Health QuestionnairePsychiatryGeneralized anxiety disorderCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Clinical psychologyPsychologyMedicineDepressive symptomsDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COVID-19 pandemic is impacting mental health, with some populations bearing a greater burden. In this cross-sectional online study, we examined the personal and intersectional factors associated with increased symptoms of anxiety and depression following the COVID-19 pandemic. We assessed pre- and post-pandemic levels of anxiety and depressive symptoms using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2 (GAD-2) and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scales, respectively. The study included 1847 participants, with an age range of 18 to 79 years and representing 43 countries. Variables with significance (p < 0.05) in predicting post-pandemic GAD-2 and PHQ-9 scores were pre-pandemic scores on the same scales, an interaction between increasing age and non-man gender, and an interaction between non-man gender and having children. Health practitioners, psychiatrists, and policy makers need to be aware and respond to the mental health burden of the pandemic on women and other gendered individuals, especially those who care for children.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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