Examination of Daytime Sleepiness and Cognitive Performance Testing in Patients with Primary Insomnia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: While individuals with insomnia consistently complain of cognitive impairment, previous studies on the effect of insomnia on objective measures of cognitive function have obtained ambiguous results. The relationship between daytime sleepiness and cognitive manifestations in insomnia patients is not clear. METHODS: Thirty-six primary insomnia patients (PIPs) and 26 good sleep controls (GSCs) with age and gender matched manner were included in the study. Participants underwent an overnight polysomnography followed by a multiple sleep latency test (MSLT) and an examination of the attention network test (ANT). ANT reflected three attentional networks including alerting, orienting and executive control. According to whether accompanied with excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS), the insomnia group were subdivided into PIPs with EDS (n = 12, score on MSLT<10 min) and PIPs without EDS (n = 24, score on MSLT≥10 min). RESULTS: PIPs only performed worse on executive control function than GSCs in ANT. PIPs with EDS had longer overall reaction time (RT) related to PIPs without EDS. Further analyses with Pearson correlation analysis showed a significant negative correlation between the overall RT and MSLT latency in insomniacs (r = -0.444, p<0.01), whereas no such correlation was found in controls. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that PIPs do show executive control function deficits compared with GSCs. Daytime sleepiness in terms of MSLT latency was associated with poor cognitive manifestations in patients with insomnia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".