MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399362793 · doi:10.1016/j.sleh.2024.03.005

Comparing patients treated with CBT for insomnia with healthy sleepers and sleepers with past insomnia on dimensions of sleep health

2024· article· en· W4399362793 on OpenAlex
Parky Lau, Elisha Starick, K. Sathish Kumar, Colleen E. Carney

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSleep Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsInsomniaSleep (system call)PsychologySleep diaryPrimary InsomniaChronic insomniaMedicineClinical psychologyPsychiatrySleep disorderActigraphy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To compare patients treated with cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) with healthy sleepers and individuals with past but not current insomnia on multidimensional sleep health. METHODS: The study evaluates CBT-I on six dimensions of sleep health (regularity, satisfaction, alertness, timing, efficiency, duration) in a sample of individuals with insomnia compared to two other unique sleep samples. Participants were in one of three groups: insomnia (CUR, n = 299), healthy sleeper (HS, n = 122), or past insomnia (PAST, n = 35). Daily diaries and validated measures were employed to capture six dimensions of sleep health. The CUR group received four 60-minute sessions of CBT-I every 2weeks, and sleep health indices were measured at baseline and post-treatment. The HS and PAST groups were measured only at baseline. RESULTS: Results of the pairwise t tests indicated improvements in sleep satisfaction, alertness (fatigue but not sleepiness), timing, efficiency, and duration (Cohen's d=0.22 to 1.55). ANCOVA models revealed significant differences in sleep health scores between treated insomnia patients and the other two sleep groups. Treated patients demonstrated less bedtime and risetime variability, in addition to lower napping duration. Overall, the study observed significant changes in various domains of sleep health after four sessions of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia; however, differences remain when compared to the other groups in the study. CONCLUSION: There may be ongoing sleep vulnerability in patients treated with cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia though future inclusion of a control group would increase internal validity. Borrowing from transdiagnostic sleep modules may be helpful to support remaining deficits after cognitive behavioral therapy for 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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.240
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.276 · 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