Examining the Association between Insomnia and Bowel Disorders in Canada: Is there a trend?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Sleep is critical for one’s health and well-being, including the prevention and/or management of certain chronic health conditions. If one suffers from insomnia (trouble falling asleep or staying asleep), he/she may be at risk of developing bowel disorders such as irritable bowel syndrome. To our knowledge, there is little information in Canada linking insomnia to bowel disorders. Our goal was use a population-based study to ascertain the association between insomnia and bowel disorders as well as to determine if a trend exists in the relationship. Methods: The data originated from the Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 1.1. The outcome variable was whether an individual has a bowel disorder (yes/no response). The primary independent variable was individuals who reported having trouble sleeping most of the time (insomnia). Odds ratios were calculated to correlate the risk of suffering from a bowel disorder if one has insomnia. Results: We found there was a strong relationship between insomnia and bowel disorders (unadjusted odds ratio 3.73). This association remained statistically significant (adjusted odds ratio 2.79) even when adjusted for sex, age, self-perceived stress and the presence of chronic fatigue syndrome in our multivariate logistic regression model. The association had a step-wise trend such that the higher the frequency of trouble sleeping the greater the incidence of bowel disorder. Conclusions: We found a strong correlation between insomnia and the risk of suffering from a bowel disorder in the Canadian population. These results hint at the importance of obtaining quality sleep in managing bowel disorders.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".