A Pilot Randomized Trial of Combined Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy and Exercise Training Versus Exercise Training Alone for the Management of Chronic Insomnia in Obstructive Sleep Apnea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Insomnia treatment among individuals with comorbid insomnia and obstructive sleep apnea is suboptimal. In a pilot randomized controlled trial, 19 individuals with comorbid insomnia and obstructive sleep apnea were allocated to one of two arms: EX + EX, consisting of two 8-week phases of exercise training (EX), or RE + CBTiEX, encompassing 8 weeks of relaxation training (RE) followed by 8 weeks of combined cognitive-behavioral therapy and exercise (CBTiEX). Outcomes included Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), polysomnography, and cardiorespiratory fitness measures. A mixed-model analysis of variance revealed a Group × Time interaction on peak oxygen consumption change, F(1, 14) = 10.1, p = .007, and EX increased peak oxygen consumption (p = .03, g' = -0.41) and reduced ISI (p = .001, g' = 0.82) compared with RE (p = .49, g = 0.16) post-8 weeks. Post-16 weeks, there was a significant Group × Time interaction (p = .014) driven by RE + CBTiEX yielding a larger improvement in ISI (p = .023, g' = 1.48) than EX + EX (p = .88, g' < 0.1). Objective sleep was unchanged. This study showed promising effects of regular EX alone and combined with cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia on ISI in comorbid insomnia and obstructive sleep apnea.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".