MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394979393 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsae067.0396

0396 Intensive Sleep Retraining and Sleep Deprivation for Treating Chronic Insomnia: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2024· article· en· W4394979393 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jacques Le Bouthillier, Hans Ivers, Charles M. Morin

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsomniaSleep deprivationRandomized controlled trialRetrainingSleep (system call)MedicineSleep diaryPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSleep disorderPsychologyActigraphyPsychiatryCircadian rhythmInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Intensive sleep retraining (ISR) is a promising alternative treatment option for individuals who do not respond to standard cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia. ISR capitalizes on two potential modes of actions: 1) a reconditioning between the bed and bedroom with rapid sleep onset and 2) an increase in the homeostatic sleep drive due to sleep deprivation. The present study compares the efficacy of ISR with total sleep deprivation for the treatment of chronic insomnia. Methods 34 adults (10 males, 24 females, mean age 33.8 years) with chronic sleep-onset insomnia (with or without sleep maintenance difficulties) were randomized to ISR, total sleep deprivation (TSD) or a control (CTL) condition. The ISR treatment consisted of 42 sleep onset trials over a 21-hour sleep deprivation period, the TSD treatment consisted of an equivalent 21-hour sleep deprivation without sleep onset trials, and the CTL condition consisted of one night of habitual sleep in the laboratory. Participants completed several measures including the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) and daily sleep diaries at pre-treatment, post-treatment, and at 1, 2, and 3 months after treatment. Results From pre-treatment to 3-month follow-up, significant and large decreases in insomnia severity were observed in both ISR (M = -5.91 units, p < .001, d = -1.99) and TSD (-5.41 units, p < .001, d = -1.82). Mean pre-treatment ISI scores (16.3) were in the moderate severity range and fell into the subthreshold insomnia category at post-treatment for both ISR (M = 12.4) and TSD (M = 12.6) groups and remained in that range at follow-up. From the same pre-treatment to 3-month follow-up period, a significant and moderate reduction in sleep onset latency was observed for the ISR group (M = -11.66 min, p < .05, d = -0.76), but not for the other two groups. Conclusion Both ISR and TSD were effective in reducing insomnia symptoms severity, but ISR produced a superior treatment response on sleep onset latency and this improvement was generally maintained up to 3 months after treatment. Support (if any) This research was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (#148410).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207