Study on Gamma sensory flicker for Insomnia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Insomnia has been the subject of much systematic research because it is a risk factor for a variety of diseases. There is some evidence that gamma sensory stimulation therapy has also been demonstrated to improve sleep quality for people with Alzheimer's disease. However, it is unclear whether this method is effective for treating insomnia. The principal objective of this project was to investigate the efficacy and safety of gamma sensory flicker in improving the sleep quality of insomnia patients. METHODS: Thirty-seven participants with insomnia were recruited for this prospective observational study. For a duration of 8 weeks, participants were exposed to flicker stimulation through a light and sound device. RESULTS: During the main phase of the study, adherence rates averaged 92.21%. Additionally, no severe adverse events were reported for flicker treatment. Analysis of sleep diaries indicated that 40 Hz flickers can enhance sleep quality by reducing sleep onset latencies, and arousals, and increasing total sleep duration. CONCLUSIONS: Gamma sensory flicker improves sleep quality in people suffering from insomnia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".