MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052202348 · doi:10.1207/s15402010bsm0201_5

Precipitating Factors of Insomnia

2004· article· en· W2052202348 on OpenAlexaff
Célyne Bastien, Annie Vallières, Charles M. Morin

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Sleep Medicine · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsInsomniaClinical psychologyNatural historyFamily historyMedicinePsychiatryPsychologySleep onsetInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Insomnia is a prevalent health complaint whose onset is precipitated by a variety of factors. There is an important need to identify and describe these factors to improve our understanding of risk factors and the natural history of insomnia. This article is aimed at identifying and describing the types of precipitating factors related to the onset of insomnia. A total of 345 patients evaluated for insomnia at a sleep-disorders clinic completed a sleep survey and underwent a semistructured clinical interview. As part of the evaluation, the specific precipitating events related to the onset of insomnia were identified. Subsequently, these factors were categorized (work-school, family, physical or psychological health, or indeterminate), and their affective valence (negative, positive, or indeterminate) was coded. The most common precipitating factors of insomnia were related to family, health, and work-school events. Sixty-five percent of precipitating events had a negative valence. These events differed with the age of onset of insomnia but not with the gender of participants. These findings are useful to identify potential risk factors for insomnia and improve our understanding of the natural history of 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations232
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral Sleep MedicineSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207