ArticlePloS one2023
An intelligent framework to measure the effects of COVID-19 on the mental health of medical staff.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine learning in the analysis of mental health at work: a scoping review.Journal of occupational health · 2026Article
- Decoding the adolescent non-suicidal self-injury: understanding with interpretable machine learning insights.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Construction and validation of machine learning algorithm for predicting depression among home-quarantined individuals during the large-scale COVID-19 outbreak: based on Adaboost model.BMC psychology · 2024Article
- Correction: An Intelligent Framework to Measure the Effects of COVID-19 on the Mental Health of Medical Staff.PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The mental and physical well-being of healthcare workers is being affected by global COVID-19. The pandemic has impacted the mental health of medical staff in numerous ways. However, most studies have examined sleep disorders, depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic problems in healthcare workers during and after the outbreak. The study's objective is to evaluate COVID-19's psychological effects on healthcare professionals of Saudi Arabia. Healthcare professionals from tertiary teaching hospitals were invited to participate in the survey. Almost 610 people participated in the survey, of whom 74.3% were female, and 25.7% were male. The survey included the ratio of Saudi and non-Saudi participants. The study has utilized multiple machine learning algorithms and techniques such as Decision Tree (DT), Random Forest (RF), K Nearest Neighbor (KNN), Gradient Boosting (GB), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), and Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM). The machine learning models offer 99% accuracy for the credentials added to the dataset. The dataset covers several aspects of medical workers, such as profession, working area, years of experience, nationalities, and sleeping patterns. The study concluded that most of the participants who belonged to the medical department faced varying degrees of anxiety and depression. The results reveal considerable rates of anxiety and depression in Saudi frontline workers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.