Familial Aggregation of Insomnia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study Objectives: There is little information about familial aggregation of insomnia; however, this type of information is important to (1) improve our understanding of insomnia risk factors and (2) to design more effective treatment and prevention programs. This study aimed to investigate evidence of familial aggregation of insomnia among first-degree relatives of probands with and without insomnia. Methods: Cases (n = 134) and controls (n = 145) enrolled in a larger epidemiological study were solicited to invite their first-degree relatives and spouses to complete a standardized sleep/insomnia survey. In total, 371 first-degree relatives (Mage = 51.9 years, SD = 18.0; 34.3% male) and 138 spouses (Mage = 55.5 years, SD = 12.2; 68.1% male) completed the survey assessing the nature, severity, and frequency of sleep disturbances. The dependent variable was insomnia in first-degree relatives and spouses. Familial aggregation was claimed if the risk of insomnia was significantly higher in the exposed (relatives of cases) compared to the unexposed cohort (relatives of controls). The risk of insomnia was also compared between spouses in the exposed (spouses of cases) and unexposed cohort (spouses of controls). Results: The risk of insomnia in exposed and unexposed biological relatives was 18.6% and 10.4%, respectively, yielding a relative risk (RR) of 1.80 (p = .04) after controlling for age and sex. The risk of insomnia in exposed and unexposed spouses was 9.1% and 4.2%, respectively; however, corresponding RR of 2.13 (p = .28) did not differ significantly. Conclusions: Results demonstrate evidence of strong familial aggregation of insomnia. Additional research is warranted to further clarify and disentangle the relative contribution of genetic and environmental factors in insomnia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".