Effects of limiting digital screen use on well-being, mood, and biomarkers of stress in adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Studies have linked higher digital screen use with poorer mental health. However, there is limited experimental evidence to suggest a causal relationship. In this trial, we aimed to investigate the effects of limiting recreational digital screen use on mental well-being, mood, and biomarkers of stress in healthy young and middle-aged adults. We randomly allocated 89 families (including 164 adults) to participate in an extensive screen media reduction intervention or control. Participants in the intervention group were instructed to decrease their recreational screen use to less than 3 hours/week/person. Intervention compliance was assessed using applications and tv-monitors. Overall subjective mental well-being and mood, and collected daily biomarkers of stress (salivary cortisol and cortisone) was assessed at baseline and 2-week follow-up. Reducing recreational digital screen use resulted in significantly improved self-reported well-being and mood in adults allocated to the intervention compared to control. We observed no intervention effects for biomarkers of stress. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04098913, 23/09/2019).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".