0688 Patients’ Self-reported Precipitating Factors For Sleepwalking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".