Biological rhythms and psychiatric symptoms in COVID-19 individuals: a cross-sectional multicentric study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/objective: This research aims to investigate the circadian rhythm in individuals with COVID-19 and healthy controls. We tested the association between disruptions of biological rhythms and psychiatric symptoms. Methods/participants: This cross-sectional study included a sample of adults with COVID-19 and controls. Biological rhythms were assessed by the Biological Rhythms in Neuropsychiatry Assessment Interview (BRIAN), while depression, sleep quality, anxiety, and stress levels were analyzed using specific scales. Results: 96 cases and 199 controls were assessed. Compared to controls, the cases showed higher biological rhythms dysfunction, especially in the sleep, activity, and eating behavior domains. Cases showed higher levels of stress, depressive symptoms, and anxiety compared to controls. BRIAN scores were positively correlated with the severity of depressive symptoms, anxiety, insomnia, and stress. Conclusion: COVID-19 is associated with circadian rhythms disturbances. Disruptions in the biological rhythm were related to a higher presence of depressive symptoms, anxiety, and stress.
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".