MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401609933 · doi:10.1016/j.jadr.2024.100827

Assessing the relationship between lifestyle factors and mental health outcomes among Afghan university students

2024· article· en· W4401609933 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Rahimi, Mohammad Faisal Wardak, Nasar Ahmad Shayan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Affective Disorders Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAfghanMental healthPsychologyGerontologyEnvironmental healthMedical educationMedicinePsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lifestyle factors such as physical activity, diet, and sleep can impact university students' mental health. This study examined the associations between lifestyle and mental health among students at Herat University in Afghanistan. A cross-sectional study was conducted among 677 students selected through stratified random sampling. Participants completed a questionnaire on socio-demographics, physical health, dietary habits, and the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-42). Chi-square tests and logistic regression analyzed the relationships between lifestyle factors and DASS-42 scores. Poor perceived health and irregular breakfast consumption were associated with higher odds of depression and anxiety. Low vegetable intake also increases the odds of depression and anxiety. Studying non-medical fields and irregular sleep patterns were linked to higher stress levels. Comprehensive health promotion and targeted interventions addressing dietary habits, sleep, and discipline-specific needs may improve the mental well-being of university students. A multidimensional approach is required to foster a healthy campus environment.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.370 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Affective Disorders ReportsSame topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207