Comparing the Experience of and Factors Perpetuating Chronic Insomnia Severity Among Young, Middle-Aged, and Older Adults
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence of chronic insomnia is on the rise among young, middle-aged, and older adults. This secondary data analysis examined age-group differences in the experience of and factors perpetuating insomnia severity. Pretest data, obtained from a trial of behavioral interventions, were collected from 742 participants, using psychometrically sound measures of perpetuating factors (sleep habits, unhelpful beliefs, presleep arousal), insomnia experience (symptoms, perceived severity), and consequences or impact on daytime functioning. The age groups reported different insomnia symptoms (difficulty maintaining sleep in older adults) and impact on daytime functioning (poorer in older adults), but the same level of perceived insomnia severity. Unhelpful beliefs about sleep predicted insomnia severity in all age groups, and presleep arousal contributed to insomnia in young adults. The results highlight the importance of adequately managing chronic insomnia to minimize its impact on daytime functioning in all age groups, and of tailoring therapy to their experiences.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it