Insomnia and risk of dementia in a large population‐based study with 11‐year follow‐up: The <scp>HUNT</scp> study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite evidence suggesting that insomnia is associated with the risk of dementia and cognitive dysfunction, studies have shown mixed results. Dementia has a long prodromal phase, and studies with long follow-up are required to avoid reverse causality. In our 11-year follow-up study, we assessed whether probable insomnia disorder (PID) based on diagnostic criteria, and insomnia symptoms were associated with risk of all-cause dementia, Alzheimer's disease (AD) and cognition, measured with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment scale. We also examined if Apolipoprotein E genotype modified any associations with dementia through interaction. We analysed data from 7492 participants in the Norwegian Trøndelag Health Study. PID was not associated with all-cause dementia (odds ratio = 1.03, 95% confidence interval = 0.74-1.43), AD (odds ratio = 1.07, 95% confidence interval = 0.71-1.60) or Montreal Cognitive Assessment score (regression coefficient = 0.37, 95% confidence interval = -0.06 to 0.80). The insomnia symptom "difficulties maintaining sleep" was associated with a lower risk of all-cause dementia (odds ratio = 0.81, 95% confidence interval = 0.67-0.98), AD (odds ratio = 0.73, 95% confidence interval = 0.57-0.93), and better Montreal Cognitive Assessment score, mean 0.40 units (95% confidence interval = 0.15-0.64). No interaction with Apolipoprotein E genotype was found. PID and insomnia symptoms did not increase the risk of dementia in our study. More research with longer follow-up is needed, and future studies should explore if the associations to dementia risk vary across insomnia subtypes.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".