Insomnia disorder increases the risk of subjective memory decline in middle-aged and older adults: a longitudinal analysis of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To examine the longitudinal association between probable insomnia status and both subjective and objective memory decline in middle-aged and older adults. METHODS: 26 363 participants, ≥45 years, completed baseline and follow-up (3 years after baseline) self-reported evaluations of sleep and memory, and neuropsychological testing in the following cognitive domains: memory, executive functions, and psychomotor speed. Participants were categorized as having probable insomnia disorder (PID), insomnia symptoms only (ISO), or no insomnia symptoms (NIS), based on sleep questionnaires. Participants were further grouped based on their sleep change over time. Prospective odds of self-reported memory worsening were assessed using logistic regression, and associations between insomnia and cognitive performance were assessed via linear mixed-effects modeling, adjusted for demographic, lifestyle, and medical factors. RESULTS: An increased odds (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.29-2.26) of self-reported memory worsening was observed for NIS participants at baseline who developed PID at follow-up compared to those who developed ISO or remained NIS. Additionally, participants whose sleep worsened from baseline to follow-up (i.e. transitioned from NIS to ISO, ISO to PID, or NIS to PID) displayed increased odds (OR 1.22; 95% CI 1.10-1.34) of subjective memory worsening at follow-up compared to those who remained insomnia-free or improved their sleep. There were no significant associations between the development of PID or worsening sleep and performance on neuropsychological tests. CONCLUSIONS: These findings of an increased odds for subjective memory decline in middle-aged and older adults with insomnia disorder suggest insomnia may be an important target for early interventions addressing age-related 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".