MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2763425837 · doi:10.12968/bjca.2017.12.10.488

Sleep and cardiovascular effects of behavioural therapies for insomnia

2017· article· en· W2763425837 on OpenAlexaff
Joyal Miranda, Souraya Sidani, Suzanne Fredericks, Mary Fox

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Cardiac Nursing · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsomniaMedicineCognitive behavioral therapy for insomniaChronic insomniaRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapySleep disorderInternal medicinePsychiatryCognitive behavioral therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Insomnia increases the risk for cardiovascular diseases. Stimulus control therapy (SCT) and sleep restriction therapy (SRT) are behavioural interventions which are effective for managing insomnia, but their effectiveness in alleviating symptoms precursor to or indicative of cardiovascular diseases is unknown. Aims: To evaluate the effects of SCT and SRT, on insomnia and cardiovascular symptoms, in persons with chronic insomnia. Methods: A randomised controlled trial was used. Participants (n=55) randomised to either SCT, SRT or no treatment group completed the study. Outcome data were collected before and after a 4-week treatment period. Results: Participants in the SRT group reported a reduction in perceived insomnia, and those in the SRT and SCT groups showed a reduction in cardiovascular symptoms. Conclusion: SRT and SCT are effective for improving insomnia and have the potential to reduce risk of cardiovascular diseases in individuals with chronic insomnia, as well as to manage insomnia when it is experienced with cardiovascular diseases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Cardiac NursingSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207