Exploring the Psychological and Physiological Insights Through Digital Phenotyping by Analyzing the Discrepancies Between Subjective Insomnia Severity and Activity-Based Objective Sleep Measures: Observational Cohort Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Insomnia is a prevalent sleep disorder affecting millions worldwide, with significant impacts on daily functioning and quality of life. While traditionally assessed through subjective measures such as the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), the advent of wearable technology has enabled continuous, objective sleep monitoring in natural environments. However, the relationship between subjective insomnia severity and objective sleep parameters remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to (1) explore the relationship between subjective insomnia severity, as measured by ISI scores, and activity-based objective sleep parameters obtained through wearable devices; (2) determine whether subjective perceptions of insomnia align with objective measures of sleep; and (3) identify key psychological and physiological factors contributing to the severity of subjective insomnia complaints. METHODS: A total of 250 participants, including both individuals with and without insomnia aged 19-70 years, were recruited from March 2023 to November 2023. Participants were grouped based on ISI scores: no insomnia, mild, moderate, and severe insomnia. Data collection involved subjective assessments through self-reported questionnaires and objective measurements using wearable devices (Fitbit Inspire 3) that monitored sleep parameters, physical activity, and heart rate. The participants also used a smartphone app for ecological momentary assessment, recording daily alcohol consumption, caffeine intake, exercise, and stress. Statistical analyses were used to compare groups on subjective and objective measures. RESULTS: Results indicated no significant differences in general sleep structure (eg, total sleep time, rapid eye movement sleep time, and light sleep time) among the insomnia groups (mild, moderate, and severe) as classified by ISI scores (all P>.05). Interestingly, the no insomnia group had longer total awake times and lower sleep quality compared with the insomnia groups. Among the insomnia groups, no significant differences were observed regarding sleep structure (all P>.05), suggesting similar sleep patterns regardless of subjective insomnia severity. There were significant differences among the insomnia groups in stress levels, dysfunctional beliefs about sleep, and symptoms of restless leg syndrome (all P≤.001), with higher severity associated with higher scores in these factors. Contrary to expectations, no significant differences were observed in caffeine intake (P=.42) and alcohol consumption (P=.07) between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The findings demonstrate a discrepancy between subjective perceptions of insomnia severity and activity-based objective sleep parameters, suggesting that factors beyond sleep duration and quality may contribute to subjective sleep complaints. Psychological factors, such as stress, dysfunctional sleep beliefs, and symptoms of restless legs syndrome, appear to play significant roles in the perception of insomnia severity. These results highlight the importance of considering both subjective and objective assessments in the evaluation and treatment of insomnia and suggest potential avenues for personalized treatment strategies that address both psychological and physiological aspects of sleep disturbances. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Research Information Service KCT0009175; https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/search/detailSearch.do?seq=26133.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».