MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The natural history of insomnia: Focus on prevalence and incidence of acute insomnia

2012· article· en· W2148123828 on OpenAlexaff
Jason Ellis, Michael L. Perlis, Laura Neale, Colin A. Espie, Célyne Bastien

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatric Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersEconomic and Social Research Council
KeywordsInsomniaIncidence (geometry)MedicineNatural historyDepression (economics)PsychiatryPediatricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite Acute Insomnia being classified as a distinct nosological entity since 1979/1980 (ASDC/DSM III-R), there are no published estimates of its prevalence and incidence or data regarding transition to chronic insomnia or remission. This lack of data prevents an understanding of: a) the pathogenesis of insomnia and b) when and how treatment should be initiated. The aim of the present study was to provide such data from two community samples. Samples were recruited in the USA (n = 2861) and the North East of the UK (n = 1095). Additionally, 412 Normal Sleepers from the UK sample were surveyed longitudinally to determine prospectively incidence, transition, and remission rates for acute insomnia and assess whether the acute insomnia was a first episode, recurrent episode, or co-morbid with symptoms of other illnesses. The prevalence of acute insomnia was 9.5% (USA) and 7.9%(UK). The prevalence of three acute insomnia subtypes in the UK were; First-Onset Acute Insomnia 2.6%; Recurrent Acute Insomnia 3.8%; and 1.4% Co-morbid Acute Insomnia. The annual incidence of acute insomnia in the UK sample was between 31.2% and 36.6%. Remission rates fluctuated depending upon the definition of acute insomnia and whether the current episode was first-onset or recurrent. These findings provide preliminary insights into the natural history of insomnia. Such data will serve to inform how and when acute insomnia should be managed and whether such interventions may serve to diminish subsequent morbidity, particularly with respect to Major Depression.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.340 · 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

Citations178
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychiatric ResearchSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207