Insomnia symptoms during pregnancy: A meta‐analysis
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
Reports of sleep disturbances are common during pregnancy, yet estimates of prevalence of insomnia symptoms during pregnancy vary widely. The goals of the current review were to summarize the existing data on prevalence of insomnia symptoms during pregnancy and to explore potential moderators, including trimester, gestational age, maternal age, symptoms of anxiety and symptoms of depression. A systematic search of PubMed, PsycInfo and Web of Science was conducted for articles published from inception up to June 2020. In total, 24 studies with a total of 15,564 participants were included in the analysis. The overall prevalence of insomnia symptoms during pregnancy was 38.2%. Trimester was a significant moderator, such that prevalence of insomnia symptoms was higher in the third trimester (39.7%) compared to first (25.3%) and second (27.2%) trimesters. No other variables significantly moderated the prevalence of insomnia symptoms. The results of the current meta-analysis suggest that the prevalence of insomnia symptoms is higher during pregnancy, particularly in the third trimester. Future research should examine the efficacy and safety of insomnia treatments with this population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 it