Personality Development since Childhood Associated with Adult Chronic Insomnia: A Study by Wang’s Memory-Tracing Personality Development Inventory (WMPI)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the deviation in normal personality development in chronic insomnia patients. MATERIAL & METHODS: Eighty-one patients with chronic insomnia and 290 healthy controls were assessed with Wang’s Memory Tracing Personality Development Inventory (WMPI). Differences between the two groups were explored to identify developmental characteristics. RESULTS: Significant differences were found in three phases. During the chronological ages of 3-6 years old, the differences are relatively minor, and manifest in a lower independence level in patients (p<0.05). In older individuals, personality development deficits present mainly as abnormal thinking, excessive interpersonal anxiety, and less independence (p<0.05). Subjects of different ages present with their own developmental characteristics. Generally, patients younger than 36 years of age had a lower developmental level in independence and across emotional dimensions. In summary, there are significant differences in personality development between primary insomniacs and healthy controls (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Individuals are prone to develop chronic insomnia in adulthood if they exhibit a deviation from normal, or expected, personality development while in childhood. Abnormal development of personality correlates with the incidence of chronic insomnia. Subjects with lower independence in self-cognition tend to pursue perfectionism which may associate with a predisposition for chronic insomnia. Patients at different ages present different characteristics in personality development.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".