Self-Focused Rumination as a Potential Cognitive Risk Factor in Stress-Related Disturbed Sleep
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research to date in the insomnia literature has primarily focused on maintaining factors of sleep disturbance, with few studies examining potential predisposing factors of protracted insomnia. Predisposing factors may potentiate sleep disturbances and subsequently increase the window of vulnerability for the development of more concerning issues regarding sleep health. Greater empirical attention towards the putative risk factors related to insomnia could lead to the identification of individuals at risk of developing chronic sleep disturbances and inform preventative treatment. The current study investigates self-focused rumination as a potential cognitive risk factor in the development of insomnia. An at-risk population (i.e., young adults) responded to questionnaires examining tendencies to engage in repetitive negative thinking (i.e., rumination, worry, and general negative repetitive thinking), psychological symptoms, insomnia severity, and other sleep-related constructs at two different time points one-week apart. Collectively, the results determine that (1) self-focused rumination was significantly associated with insomnia severity, however, this effect dissipated after controlling for other types of repetitive negative thinking. (2) Symptom-focused rumination was the sole significant predictor of insomnia severity above and beyond self-focused rumination, worry, general negative repetitive thinking), and baseline subjective insomnia severity in self-defined poor sleepers. In self-defined good sleepers, general negative repetitive thinking uniquely predicted subjective insomnia severity. (3) Self-focused rumination was not a significant moderator of the stress-sleep relationship. (4) There exists a counter association between subjective insomnia severity and self focused rumination, with insomnia significantly predicting self-focused rumination one-week later. The findings provide initial support for repetitive negative thinking as a cognitive risk factor to insomnia through a stress-specific pathway. While theoretical processes underlying a transdiagnostic approach to negative repetitive thinking remain untested, the results suggest there is clinical significance in ruminative content from a disorder-specific perspective. Limitations and future directions with respect to conducting a more methodologically sound and intimate study using ecological momentary assessments to evaluate the relationship between stress, sleep, and cognitions are provided.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".