MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324387501 · doi:10.1177/23727322221145308

Psychology Meets Biology in COVID-19: What We Know and Why It Matters for Public Health

2023· article· en· W4324387501 on OpenAlexaff
Emily J. Jones, Kieran Ayling, Cameron R. Wiley, Adam W A Geraghty, Amy L. Greer, Julianne Holt‐Lunstad, Aric A. Prather, Hannah M. C. Schreier, Roxane Cohen Silver, Rodlescia Sneed, Anna L. Marsland, Sarah D. Pressman, Kavita Vedhara

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsBiopsychosocial modelPandemicPsychosocialPublic healthPsychological interventionPsychologyVaccinationCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MedicinePsychotherapistPsychiatryVirologyNursingInfectious disease (medical specialty)Disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Psychosocial factors are related to immune, viral, and vaccination outcomes. Yet, this knowledge has been poorly represented in public health initiatives during the COVID-19 pandemic. This review provides an overview of biopsychosocial links relevant to COVID-19 outcomes by describing seminal evidence about these associations known prepandemic as well as contemporary research conducted during the pandemic. This focuses on the negative impact of the pandemic on psychosocial health and how this in turn has likely consequences for critically relevant viral and vaccination outcomes. We end by looking forward, highlighting the potential of psychosocial interventions that could be leveraged to support all people in navigating a postpandemic world and how a biopsychosocial approach to health could be incorporated into public health responses to future pandemics.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.391
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.153 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolicy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain SciencesSame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207