MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320709930 · doi:10.1111/jcpp.13765

Commentary: The impact of Covid‐19 on psychopathology in children and young people worldwide – reflections on <scp>Newlove‐Delgado</scp> et al. (2023)

2023· letter· en· W4320709930 on OpenAlexaff
Samuele Cortese, Marco Solmi, Christoph U. Correll

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · 2023
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsOttawa Public HealthOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersAllerganSun PharmaSeqirusMitsubishi Tanabe Pharma CorporationTeva Pharmaceutical IndustriesNovo NordiskMylanH. Lundbeck A/SQuantICSK Life ScienceGedeon RichterSunovion
KeywordsFlourishingPandemicMental healthPsychologyPsychopathologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Meta-analysisSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)PsychiatryMedicinePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past 3 years, since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, there has been an impressive flourishing body of publications on the impact of the pandemic and related restrictions on the mental health of children and young people. It was about time for a rigorous quantitative evidence synthesis of this large body of research. Newlove-Delgado et al. (J Child Psychol Psychiatry, 2022) took on this challenge by completing a systematic review with meta-analysis of epidemiological studies on the impact of Covid-19 on psychopathology in children and adolescents, featured in the 2023 Annual Research Review series of the Journal. Overall, this meta-analysis shows that the relationship between mental health and Covid-19 pandemic in children and adolescents is complex and, as such, it ought to be addressed by studies using rigorous methods and advanced analytic strategies. Collectively, as a field, we should and could do better with regards to the scope and quality of the studies in this area.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0500.041
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.008

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.388 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child Psychology and PsychiatrySame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207