Managing Insomnia Using Lucid Dreaming Training: A Pilot Study
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
Objectives/Background: Despite Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia (CBT-I) being considered the first-line treatment for insomnia, it is not without its challenges. As such it is worthwhile to consider, and test, alternative or adjuvant management options.Methods/Participants: The aim of the present study was to examine whether Lucid Dreaming Training for insomnia (LDT-I) impacted on insomnia, depressive and anxious symptomology in an open label trial of 48 adults with Insomnia Disorder. Participants completed the Insomnia Severity Index, General Anxiety Disorder-7 and Patient Health Questionnaire at baseline then one month following LDT-I. Training consisted of four modules delivered over a period of two consecutive weeks.Results: The results suggest, albeit preliminarily, that LDT-I may have a place within the non-pharmacological management of insomnia, as there were significant reductions in insomnia severity (t(46) = 8.16,p <.001), anxious symptomology (t(46) = 4.75,p <.001) and depressive symptomology (t(46) = 5.87,p <.001). Further, the effect size in terms of pre-post reductions on ISI scores was large (dz 1.17).Conclusions: Whilst the results are promising, further testing of LDT-I is needed to inform its place amongst the non-pharmacological treatments for insomnia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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