MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416203916 · doi:10.12688/mep.21343.1

Identifying Mental Health Risk in Medical Students: A Quantitative Analysis of Wellness Assessments for First- and Third-Year Students at the University of Ottawa

2025· article· en· W4416203916 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kay-Anne Haykal, Inès Zombre, Selena Laprade, Miryam Duquet, Joseph Abdulnour

Bibliographic record

VenueMedEdPublish · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthPsychological resilienceContext (archaeology)BurnoutCohortRisk assessmentSocial environmentCohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<ns3:p> Introduction An alarming prevalence of burnout among medical students has been reported in many countries, including Canada. To design resilience and wellness programs, it is important to explore individual risk factors. This article presents an example of a Wellness Assessment Program for medical students at the University of Ottawa. The goal was to identify risk factors for poorer mental health outcomes among medical students at the University of Ottawa. Methods We conducted a quantitative study using a Wellness Assessment Questionnaire among four cohorts of first- and third-year students. Results Risk factors that significantly impacted the mental health of 1 <ns3:sup>st</ns3:sup> and 3 <ns3:sup>rd</ns3:sup> year medical students at the University of Ottawa were physical health, sleep/fatigue, social support, education and career, stress, and drug and/or alcohol use. Students who were originally from Ottawa had more social support and less stress and drug and/or alcohol use (p &lt; 0.001;p=0.009). Being in the Francophone cohort had a positive effect on physical health, but a negative effect on psychological/emotional health (p=0.039;p=0.004). There was a statistically significant difference (p=0.021) between the psychological/emotional health of 1st-year students (M=0.7895) and 3rd-year students (M=0.8923) when covariates (risk factors) were not considered. Discussion In the current context of the limited effectiveness of measures to address the negative impacts of medical education on student well-being, this study showed that efficient use of the Wellness Assessment Program data can identify risk factors that have a significant impact on wellness. </ns3:p>

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.439 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedEdPublishSame topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207