Randomized Study on the Efficacy of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia Secondary to Breast Cancer, Part II: Immunologic Effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cross-sectional studies suggest that clinical insomnia is associated with immune downregulation. However, there is a definite need for experimental studies on this question. The goal of this randomized controlled study was to assess the effect of an 8-week cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for chronic insomnia on immune functioning of breast cancer survivors. Previous analyses of this study showed that CBT was associated with improved sleep and quality of life, and reduced psychological distress. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-seven women with chronic insomnia secondary to breast cancer were randomly assigned to CBT (n = 27) or to a waiting-list control condition (WLC; n = 30). Peripheral-blood samples were taken at baseline and post-treatment (and postwaiting for WLC patients), as well as at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up for immune measures, including enumeration of blood cell counts (ie, WBCs, monocytes, lymphocytes, CD3+, CD4+, CD8+, and CD16+/CD56+) and cytokine production (ie, interleukin-1-beta [IL-1beta] and interferon gamma [IFN-gamma]). RESULTS: Patients treated with CBT had higher secretion of IFN-gamma and lower increase of lymphocytes at post-treatment compared with control patients. Pooled data from both treated groups indicated significantly increased levels of IFN-gamma and IL-1beta from pre- to post-treatment. In addition, significant changes in WBCs, lymphocytes, and IFN-gamma were found at follow-up compared with post-treatment. CONCLUSION: This study provides some support to the hypothesis of a causal relationship between clinical insomnia and immune functioning. Future studies are needed to investigate the clinical impact of such immune alterations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".