The Correlation Between Brain Performance Capacity and COVID-19: A Cross-sectional Survey and Canonical Correlation Analysis

  1. Y Liu
  2. X Chen
  3. JS Xian
  4. R Wang
  5. K Ma
  6. K Xu
  7. X Yang
  8. FL Wang
  9. N Mu
  10. S Wang
  11. Y Lai
  12. T Li
  13. CY Yang
  14. YL Quan
  15. H Feng
  16. LH Wang
  17. TN Chen

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Objective

To generate a concept of brain performance capacity (BPC) with sleep, fatigue and mental workload as evaluation indicators and to analyze the correlation between BPC and the impact of COVID-19.

Methods

A cluster sampling method was adopted to randomly select 259 civil air crew members. The measurements of sleep quality, fatigue and mental workload (MWL) were assessed using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-20) and NASA Task Load Index. The impact of COVID-19 included 7 dimensions scored on a Likert scale. Canonical correlation analysis (CCA) was conducted to examine the relationship between BPC and COVID-19.

Results

A total of 259 air crew members participated in the survey. Participants’ average PSQI score was 7.826 (SD = 3.796), with 49.8% reporting incidents of insomnia, mostly of a minor degree. Participants’ MFI was an average 56.112 (SD = 10.040), with 100% reporting some incidence of fatigue, mainly severe. The weighted mental workload (MWL) score was an average of 43.084 (SD = 17.543), with reports of mostly a mid-level degree. There was a significant relationship between BPC and COVID-19, with a canonical correlation coefficient of 0.507 ( P =0.000), an eigenvalue of 0.364 and a contribution rate of 69.1%. All components of the BPC variable set: PSQI, MFI and MWL contributed greatly to BPC, with absolute canonical loadings of 0.790, 0.606 and 0.667, respectively; the same was true for the COVID-19 variable set, with absolute canonical loadings ranging from 0.608 to 0.951.

Conclusion

Multiple indicators to measure BPC and the interrelationship of BPC and COVID-19 should be used in future research to gain a comprehensive understanding of anti-epidemic measures to ensure victory in the battle against the spread of the disease.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.01.29.22270064: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    RandomizationIndividuals completing the survey received a red envelope with a random amount of money as compensation from Questionnaire Star.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    2.3 Statistical analyses: The statistical analyses were carried out by IBM SPSS Statistics 26.0.
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    This study has limitations that need to be considered. First, this was a cross-sectional study, so it cannot provide a cause-and-effect relationship. Because BPC is dynamic, more rigorous study designs, such as cohort studies, should be conducted in the future. Second, although sleep, fatigue and mental workload were successfully used as evaluation indicators of BPC, the assessment tools in this study were mainly scales that are subjective. Therefore, more evaluation indicators of BPC should be explored and combined with objective evaluation indicators.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2022.01.29.22270064v1 on medRxiv