The relationship between insomnia symptoms and hypertension using United States population-level data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine if the association with hypertension was different between individuals with and without insomnia symptoms. METHODS: This was a population-based, multiyear, cross-sectional study with data from the 2005-2008 United States National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (n = 12,643). Insomnia symptoms were considered if at least one of difficulty falling asleep, prolonged nocturnal awakening, or early morning awakening was reported, at least five times per month. Short sleep time (<6 h) was also considered in the insomnia definition. Ever doctor-diagnosed self-reported hypertension, self-reported current antihypertensive use, and objectively measured systolic and diastolic hypertension were examined. RESULTS: There were generally no associations between insomnia symptoms and hypertension when sleep duration was not considered in the insomnia definition and after controlling for covariates. However, there were significantly increased odds of subjective hypertension measures among individuals with insomnia coupled with short sleep time compared to individuals without insomnia after controlling for covariates [e.g. among individuals with any insomnia: odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence interval (CI) of doctor-diagnosed hypertension 1.49, 1.19-1.88; OR, 95% CI of current antihypertensive medications 1.33, 1.04-1.70]. There were no significant associations though between insomnia symptoms accompanied by short sleep time and objective hypertension measures (e.g. among individuals with any insomnia: OR, 95% CI of measured systolic hypertension 1.32, 0.87-2.02; OR, 95% CI of measured diastolic hypertension 0.96, 0.52-1.75). CONCLUSION: Insomnia symptoms coupled with short sleep time may be positively related to hypertension, but the lack of association with objective hypertension measures suggests that there may be no true relationship present.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".