Comparative analysis of sleep physiology using qualitative and quantitative criteria for insomnia symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite decades of research, defining insomnia remains challenging due to its complex and variable nature. Various diagnostic systems emphasize the chronic nature of insomnia and its impact on daily functioning, relying heavily on patient self-reporting due to limitations in objective measures such as polysomnography (PSG). Discrepancies between subjective experiences and objective PSG results highlight the need for more nuanced approaches, such as electroencephalogram (EEG) spectral analysis, which reveals distinct patterns of high-frequency activity in individuals with insomnia. This study explores EEG markers of insomnia by integrating subjective reports with objective physiological markers, specifically ORP (Odds-Ratio-Product) and spectral features, to address inconsistencies found in previous research and clinical settings. Qualitative and quantitative definitions of insomnia are contrasted to highlight differences in sleep architecture and EEG characteristics. The research aims to determine whether groups defined by weekly frequency and daily duration of symptoms have different distribution patterns and which physiological characteristics best distinguish insomnia patients from controls. Our findings suggest that ORP, as a dependent variable, captures the most significant differences in the independent variables across the model. Elevated beta power in insomnia patients indicates increased cortical arousal, supporting the perspective of insomnia as a hyperarousal disorder. Future research should focus on using ORP to enhance the understanding of sleep disturbances in insomnia. Comprehensive evaluation of insomnia requires integrating qualitative, quantitative, and neurophysiological data to fully understand its impact on sleep architecture and quality.
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 | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".