CBT-I and the short sleep duration insomnia phenotype: a comment on Bathgate, Edinger and Krystal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the DSM-5 and the ICSD-3 do not discriminate among insomnia types or subtypes anymore, it appears that some specific insomnia phenotypes remain important to study. One of them is the object of the present paper: insomnia with short sleep duration. Since Vgontzas and colleagues (1) put forward a heuristic model of two insomnia phenotypes based on objective sleep duration, they have suggested that insomnia with short sleep duration is the most severe biological phenotype of insomnia, and research in this area has been blooming. The Penn State group has studied the impact of this phenotype on adolescents and its association with depression risks and inflammation (2-4). A recent review by Fernandez-Mandoza (5) also suggested that besides increased physiological hyperarousal and cardiometabolic and neuropsychiatric risks, insomnia with short sleep duration may even respond differently to treatment compared to other insomnia phenotypes.
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 | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.042 | 0.057 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
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".