MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323036784 · doi:10.1111/jsr.13860

Mechanisms of cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia

2023· review· en· W4323036784 on OpenAlex
Ellemarije Altena, Jason Ellis, Nathalie Camart, Kelly Guichard, Célyne Bastien

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sleep Research · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRuminationInsomniaWorryCognitionDysfunctional familyCognitive behavioral therapy for insomniaPsychologyClinical psychologyCognitive therapyPsychological interventionCognitive behavioral therapyPsychotherapistPsychiatryAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although much is known now about behavioural, cognitive and physiological consequences of insomnia, little is known about changes after cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia on these particular factors. We here report baseline findings on each of these factors in insomnia, after which we address findings on their changes after cognitive behavioural therapy. Sleep restriction remains the strongest determinant of insomnia treatment success. Cognitive interventions addressing dysfunctional beliefs and attitudes about sleep, sleep-related selective attention, worry and rumination further drive effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia. Future studies should focus on physiological changes after cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia, such as changes in hyperarousal and brain activity, as literature on these changes is sparse. We introduce a detailed clinical research agenda on how to address this topic.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.362
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.171 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it