The Mental Health State of Canadian Ophthalmologists during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Survey-Based Study and Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted the practice of medicine, causing stress and uncertainty among ophthalmologists. This cross-sectional, survey-based study of Canadian Ophthalmological Society members (n = 1152) aims to report on Canadian ophthalmologists’ mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Four questionnaires were administered between December 2020 and May 2021: the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7), the 7-item Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), and the Impact of Event Scale—Revised (IES-R). From all of the responses, 60/85 answers were deemed complete and were included. The median age was 50–59 years and 53% were women. On PHQ-9, most respondents had no or minimal depressive symptoms (n = 38, 63%), while 12% (n = 7) had moderately severe depressive symptoms and 12% (n = 7) reported impaired daily functioning and/or thoughts of suicide or self-harm. On the GAD-7 scale, 65% (n = 39) had no significant anxiety, while 13% (n = 8) had moderate to severe anxiety. Most respondents did not have clinically significant insomnia (n = 41, 68%). Finally, 16 respondents (27%) had an IES-R score ≥24 suggesting possible post-traumatic stress disorder. No significant differences were found based on demographics. During the COVID-19 pandemic, up to 40% of respondents experienced varying degrees of depression, anxiety, insomnia, and distress from the event. In 12%, there were concerns for impaired daily functioning and/or suicidal thoughts.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it