Effects of chronic insomnia on cognitive functions assessed objectively
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the changes of cognitive functions in patients with primary insomnia(PI)or comorbidity of depression and insomnia(CDI).Methods Patients with PI and CDI were diagnosed according to DSM-Ⅳ criteria,and their Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index(PSQI)were over 7 scores.Following evaluation of the depression severity by Hamilton Depression Rating Scale 17(HAMD17),their cognitive functions were measured by Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale(MoCA).The data from the patients were compared with those from the control group.Results Compared to the controls,the overall score and factor score of visual-spatial and executive function assessed by MoCA were significantly lower in the PI group(Ps0.05),and so were the total score and some factor scores of,i.e.,visual-spatial and executive function,language and delayed recall(Ps0.05) in the CDI group.A stronger negative correlation occurred between the total score of MoCA and some factor scores of either PSQI[sleep duration(r=-0.293),sleep efficiency(r=-0.258)and sleep disturbances(r=-0.217)]or HAMD17(anxiety/somatization,sleep and insight),respectively(Ps0.05).The unconditional univariate and multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that the cognitive function depended on the educated years(β=-0.434,P0.001),the total scores of HAMD17(β=0.434,P=0.009)and PSQI(β=0.357,P=0.029),respectively.Conclusions Chronic insomnia,regardless of PI or CDI,did affect the cognitive function in certain extent.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".