MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040807870 · doi:10.1080/15402000802577769

Characteristics of Individuals With Insomnia Who Seek Treatment in a Clinical Setting Versus Those Who Volunteer for a Randomized Controlled Trial

2009· article· en· W2040807870 on OpenAlex
Judith Davidson, Annie Aimé, Hans Ivers, Charles M. Morin

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Sleep Medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalQueen's University
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsInsomniaGeneralizability theoryAnxietyRandomized controlled trialClinical psychologyDepression (economics)Clinical trialComorbidityMoodPsychiatryPsychologyMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The generalizability of outcome data derived from insomnia clinical trials is based largely on the extent to which research volunteers resemble clinical patients. This study compared sociodemographic, sleep, psychological, and medical characteristics of individuals who volunteered for an insomnia treatment study (n = 120) to patients who sought treatment in a clinical setting (n = 106). The samples did not differ on most sleep and medical variables, but clinical patients had a higher prevalence of mood disorders, greater anxiety and depression symptoms, and higher perceived insomnia severity. Differences on psychological variables were accentuated by the research selection process. It is suggested to minimize exclusion based on psychological comorbidity in order to enhance ecological validity of randomized controlled trials of insomnia treatments.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it