The Natural History of Insomnia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite its high prevalence, little information is available about the natural history of insomnia. The extent to which episodes of insomnia will persist or remit over time is difficult to predict. We examined the natural history of insomnia and describe the most common trajectories over 3 years. METHODS: Three hundred eighty-eight adults (mean [SD] age, 44.8 [13.9] years; 61% women) were selected from a larger population-based sample on the basis of the presence of insomnia at baseline. They completed standardized sleep/insomnia questionnaires at 3 annual follow-up assessments. For each follow-up assessment, participants were classified into 1 of 3 groups (individuals with an insomnia syndrome, individuals with insomnia symptoms, and individuals with good sleep) on the basis of algorithms using standard diagnostic criteria for insomnia. Rates of persistent insomnia, remission, and relapse were computed for each group. RESULTS: Of the study sample, 74% reported insomnia for at least 1 year (2 consecutive assessments) and 46% reported insomnia persisting over the entire 3-year study. The course of insomnia was more likely to be persistent in those with more severe insomnia at baseline (ie, insomnia syndrome) and in women and older adults. Remission rate was 54%; however, 27% of those with remission of insomnia eventually experienced relapse. Individuals with subsyndromal insomnia at baseline were 3 times more likely to remit than worsen to syndrome status, although persistence was the most frequent course in that group as well. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that insomnia is often a persistent condition, in particular when it reaches the diagnostic threshold for an insomnia disorder.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".