MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2609715405 · doi:10.1093/sleepj/zsx050.293

0294 RESILIENCE, EMOTION AND AROUSAL REGULATION IN INSOMNIA DISORDER

2017· article· en· W2609715405 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Laura Palagini, B Olivia, Eleonora Petri, Giada Cipollone, Umberto Moretto, Giulio Perugi

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsInsomniaPsychologyArousalContext (archaeology)AnxietyClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to the diathesis-stress model of insomnia, a vulnerability to developing it may lead to insomnia in response to stress. Recently, there has been a paradigm shift in the understanding of resilience in context of stress- risk-vulnerability dimension. Resilience is a psychobiological factor which determines individual’s capacity to adapt successfully to stressful events. Lower level of resilience increases vulnerability for developing mental disorders. Beacuse emotion and arousal regulation is a key factor in insomnia the aim was to explore the level of resiliency in subjects with insomnia and its relationship with emotion and arousal regulation. The study consisted of 48 subjects with Insomnia disorder according to the DSM-5 and 35 good sleepers. Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), Resilience Scale for Adults (RSA), Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS), Pre-sleep Arousal Scale (PSAS) were administered while controlling for anxiety and depressive symptoms. Differences in means between groups were assessed using t-test or Mann-Whitney U/Wilcoxon test. Univariate/ multivariate regression analyses and mediation analyses were performed. Subjects with Insomnia (F 24, mean age 49 ± 2.1) presented higher ISI, RSA, DERS and PSAS scores than good sleepers (F 22, mean age 47.2 ± 1.2) (ISI: 15.7 ± 5.8 vs 5.1 ± 0.6, p<.01; RSA 96.2 ± 9.5 vs 45 ± 15, p<.01; DERS: 83.1 ± 3.3 vs 24.1 ± 12.1, p<.01; PSAS Cognitive 23.3 ± 11 vs 10 ± 0.6, p<.01, PSAS Somatic 16.1 ± 7 vs 10.2 ± 1.2, p<.01). After controlling for anxiety/depressive symptoms, low level of resiliency correlated to DERS Impulse control difficulties (B=0.5, p=0.008) DERS Limited emotion regulation strategies (B=0.35, p=0.008) and PSAS Cognitive (B=0.42, p=0.003). Impulse control difficulties mediated the relationship between low level of resilience and cognitive hyperarousal-PSAS Cognitive (Z=2.03, SE=0.08, p=0.04). Subjects with insomnia show low level of resilience that is considered a mechanism of successful adaptation to stressors. In insomnia, low level of resilience is related to emotional deregulation and to cognitive hyperarousal. In particular, impulse control difficulties may mediate the relationship between lack of resilience and cognitive hyperarousal in subjects with insomnia. If resilience helps to minimize the extent of pathogenesis in developmental process an early identification of vulnerable candidates should be useful for preventing insomnia development and mainteinance. no support.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.237
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207