Sleep Instability in Paradoxical Insomnia is Associated with Perception of Sleep
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective The main clinical characteristics that diversify paradoxical insomniacs from objective insomnia patients remain unclear. The current study systematically examined the difference in sleep-related, subjective-and objective parameters between insomnia patients with or without misperception. Methods Patients who reported having poor sleep quality (subjective sleep efficiency; SE ≤ 85%) on both weekends and weekdays and difficulty falling asleep in the Sleep Heart Health Study were examined in this study. Patients with objective SE ≤ 85% and > 85% were then classified as objective insomnia (n = 58) and paradoxical insomnia (n = 61), respectively. The differences in demographic data, subjective sleep quality, daytime function, and objective sleep architecture measured by polysomnography, were assessed between the groups. Results Though there were no significant group differences in the demographics between objective insomniacs and paradoxical insomniacs, paradoxical insomniacs reported significantly poorer daytime function than patients with objective insomnia. Moreover, paradoxical insomniacs’ subjective sleep evaluation on recording day was significantly higher than habitual reports. The main finding from this research was that the transition indices from stage N3 to stage N2 or N1 was significantly different between the two groups, which could indicate that sleep instability may be a factor in leading paradoxical insomnia patients to underestimate their sleep efficiency. Conclusions Our findings indicated a possible link between sleep misperception and the microstructure of sleep, specifically the sleep-state instability. The interplay between the neurobiology of sleep instability and perception of sleep needs further investigation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".