MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799780680 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsy061.687

0688 Patients’ Self-reported Precipitating Factors For Sleepwalking

2018· article· en· W2799780680 on OpenAlexaffabout
Antonio Zadra, Lydia Hébert‐Tremblay, Simon Trudeau, Alex Désautels, Jacques Montplaisir

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and Work-Related Fatigue
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCanadian Sleep & Circadian Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSleepwalkingMedicinePsychologyPsychiatrySleep disorderInsomnia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sleepwalking is a common arousal parasomnia affecting between 2%-4% of the general adult population. Although factors that intensify or disrupt sleep have been shown to increase the likelihood and intensity of somnambulism in predisposed individuals, little is known about the factors sleepwalkers themselves view as most likely to precipitate their episodes. Participants were 165 patients (63 men, 102 women; mean age 32.8 years) referred to our sleep disorders clinic for sleepwalking. Each patient underwent overnight polysomnography to rule out the presence of other major sleep disorders and received a final diagnosis of sleepwalking. Participants completed a questionnaire assessing various aspects of their sleepwalking, including history, nature and frequency of episodes, as well as potential precipitating factors. Precipitating factors were assessed by requiring participants to rate a number of items on a scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always) for the degree to which it contributed to their experiencing episodes. The factors rated by the greatest proportion of sleepwalkers as “often” (4) or “always” precipitating their episodes were stress (70.9% of all patients), bad dreams and nightmares (47.3%), dreams in general (34.5%), sleep deprivation (32,5%), emotionally charged TV shows or movies (26,5%), sleeping in a new environment (25.5%) and irregular sleep schedules (22.4%). Other self-reported factors included sudden noises (14.6%), bed partner moving suddenly (12.7%) and being touched (8.5%). Substance-related factors (e.g., consumption of caffeine, alcohol) were endorsed by fewer than 10% of sleepwalkers. Consistent with the literature, sleepwalkers report stress and sleep deprivation as significant precipitating factors for their episodes. These factors are known to increase sleep pressure or fragment sleep, two conditions associated with increased sleepwalking in predisposed individuals. The fact that dream-related factors were so frequently endorsed underscores the importance of assessing phenomenological aspects associated with sleepwalking. Our findings for substance-related factors contrasts with anecdotal reports suggesting that alcohol consumption is an important precipitating factor of somnambulism. Research supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant number MOP 97865).

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicSleep and Work-Related FatigueFrench-language works237,207