Association between insomnia disorder and cognitive function in middle-aged and older adults: a cross-sectional analysis of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study examined the differences in cognitive function between middle-aged and older adults with insomnia disorder, insomnia symptoms only (ISO) or no insomnia symptoms (NIS), in the context of other health and lifestyle factors. METHODS: Twenty-eight thousand four hundred eighty-five participants >45 years completed questionnaires, physical examinations, and neuropsychological testing across domains of processing speed, memory, and executive functions. An eight-question instrument assessed participants' sleep, defining subjects with insomnia symptoms, probable insomnia disorder (PID), or NIS. The associations between these three groups and cognitive performance were examined with linear regression models adjusted for lifestyle and clinical factors. RESULTS: PID was identified in 1,068 participants (3.7% of the sample) while 7,813 (27.5%) experienced ISO. Participants with PID exhibited greater proportions of adverse medical and lifestyle features such as anxiety, depression, and diabetes than both other groups. Analyses adjusting for age, sex, education, as well as medical and lifestyle factors demonstrated that adults with PID exhibited declarative memory deficits (Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test) compared with ISO or NIS. Adults with insomnia symptoms exhibited better performance on a task of mental flexibility than both other groups. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that insomnia disorder in middle-aged and older adults is associated with poorer health outcomes and worse memory performance than adults with insomnia symptoms alone or without any sleep complaints, even after adjustment for comorbidities. The assessment of longitudinal data within this cohort will be critical to understand if insomnia disorder may increase the risk of further cognitive decline.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".