Insomnia May Mediate the Relationship Between Stress and Anxiety: A Cross-Sectional Study in University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Md Dilshad Manzar,1 Mohammed Salahuddin,2,3 Seithikurippu R Pandi-Perumal,4 Ahmed S Bahammam5,6 1Department of Nursing, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Majmaah University, Al Majmaah 11952, Saudi Arabia; 2Department of Pharmacy, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Mizan-Tepi University (Mizan Campus), Mizan-Aman, Ethiopia; 3Pharmacology Division, Department of BioMolecular Sciences, University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, USA; 4Somnogen Canada Inc, Toronto, ON, Canada; 5The University Sleep Disorders Center, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh 11324, Saudi Arabia; 6National Plan for Science and Technology, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi ArabiaCorrespondence: Md Dilshad ManzarDepartment of Nursing, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Majmaah University, Al Majmaah 11952, Saudi ArabiaTel +966-551923468Email m.manzar@mu.edu.saBackground: High perceived stress and anxiety disorders are usually comorbid with each other, with stress often sequentially preceding the development of anxiety. While prior findings showed a causal role of sleep problems in anxiety, no study has assessed the role of insomnia as a mediator in the relationship between stress and anxiety.Methods: A cross-sectional study on university students (n = 475, age = 21.1+2.6 years) was conducted over 3 months. Participants completed self-report measures of Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire-Mizan (LSEQ-M), Perceived Stress Scale-10 (PSS-10), generalized anxiety disorder-7 scale (GAD-7), and a sociodemographic tool. The mediation effect model given by Baron and Kelly was used to determine the relationship.Results: The prevalence of insomnia and anxiety disorder was 43.6% and 21.9%, respectively. Stress was significantly associated with LSEQ-M (insomnia measure) (b = − .44, SE = 0.16, p< 0.01), and high levels of anxiety (b = 0.25, SE = 0.03, p < 0.01). The indirect effect of stress on anxiety through LSEQ-M (insomnia measure) was significant (95% confidence interval [0.01, 0.04]). However, the indirect effect of anxiety on stress through LSEQ-M (insomnia measure) was non-significant (95% confidence interval [− .01, 0.04]).Conclusions: Students having higher perceived stress levels and comorbid insomnia were also likely to have a higher anxiety level.Keywords: stress, anxiety, insomnia, mediator
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 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".