MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394977581 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsae067.0428

0428 Comparative Analysis of Sleep Physiology Using Qualitative and Quantitative Criteria for Insomnia Symptoms

2024· article· en· W4394977581 on OpenAlexaff
Ruda Lee, Olivia Larson, Magdy Younes, Bethany Gerardy, Allan I Pack, Brendan T Keenan, Philip Gehrman

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsomniaSleep (system call)Qualitative analysisPsychologyMedicineClinical psychologyPsychiatryQualitative researchComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Insomnia is diagnosed based on subjective difficulty falling asleep, staying asleep, and early morning awakenings. Evidence of objective EEG abnormalities is mixed, in part due to small sample sizes and variable definitions of insomnia. This study aimed to explore these issues by comparing the insomnia case group and the control group on sleep physiology objectively measured depending on separate qualitative and quantitative self-reported insomnia symptoms. Methods Analyses are based on questionnaires and PSG data from the Sleep Apnea Global Interdisciplinary Consortium (SAGIC). Two distinct insomnia case groups were defined. A qualitative insomnia case was defined as self-reported difficulty falling or staying asleep at least 3 nights/week for more than 3 months and moderate or greater impairment in daytime function due to poor sleep (n=350, 58% female; 48.47±14.38 years). The quantitative case definition required average self-reported sleep latency or wakefulness after sleep onset >30 minutes combined with the frequency and impairment criteria. (n=196, 62% female; 48.77±13.74 years). We also defined control groups without insomnia. Participants were excluded if they had sleep apnea (apnea-hypopnea index [AHI] > 5 events/hour) or were shift workers. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) models, adjusted for age and sex, were separately conducted to compare the insomnia and control groups. The focus was on traditional sleep architecture variables, EEG power within specific frequency bands, and odds ratio product (ORP, representing sleep depth) metrics. Results The MANOVA analysis indicated significant group differences, with post-hoc tests identifying key variables responsible for these distinctions. In qualitative criteria, sleep onset latency, sigma, beta1, and beta2 in EEG1 and EEG2, along with REM and NREM ORP, were significant contributors to the observed differences. In quantitative criteria, besides the same result in qualitative criteria, REM stage and alpha in EEG1 and EEG2 played significant roles. Effect sizes were consistent across both qualitative and quantitative criteria. Conclusion While the analyses depending on qualitative and quantitative criteria did not have different effect sizes, some variables contributed to the group differences. As such, the results of this study support the idea that qualitative and quantitative criteria measure the same dimensions for physiological differences related to insomnia. Support (if any)

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.588
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.372 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207