Chronic Insomnia and Immune Functioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to investigate whether clinical insomnia is associated with immune alterations by comparing immune functioning between patients with chronic insomnia and good sleepers. METHODS: The good sleepers group was composed of 19 adults with a regular sleep schedule and no complaint of sleep disturbances. The insomnia group was composed of 17 adults meeting criteria for a chronic primary insomnia disorder. Peripheral blood samples were taken at the interview (time 1) and before the second night of polysomnographic assessment (time 2) for immune measures, including enumeration of blood cell counts (ie, white blood cells, monocytes, lymphocytes, and CD3+, CD4+, CD8+, and CD16+/CD56+ cells), natural killer cell activity, and cytokine production (ie, interleukin-1beta, interleukin-2, and interferon gamma). RESULTS: Significant between-group differences were observed for CD3+, CD4+, and CD8+ cells, with higher levels found in good sleepers. In addition, a significant group-by-time interaction was found on monocyte counts. Although this was the only significant interaction effect observed, between-group differences were greater at time 2. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that chronic insomnia is associated with some immune alterations. More research is needed to determine the clinical significance of these findings.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".