Effect of Lemborexant on Daytime Functioning in Adults With Insomnia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Insomnia and some insomnia treatments can impact an individual's daytime functioning. Here, we performed post hoc analyses of patient-reported outcomes from a phase 3 clinical trial to assess the impact of lemborexant (LEM), a dual orexin receptor antagonist, on daytime functioning. Adults with insomnia were randomized 1:1:1 to receive placebo, LEM 5 mg (LEM5) or LEM 10 mg (LEM10) for 6 months. Treatment impact on subjects' perceptions of their insomnia symptoms and daytime functioning was assessed by the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) and Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) questionnaires. Safety assessments included monitoring of treatment emergent adverse events. < .05). LEM5 and LEM10 treatment was well tolerated. Improved insomnia symptoms with LEM treatment may translate into improved daytime functioning, suggesting LEM may be appropriate for adults experiencing daytime impairment with their nighttime symptoms. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02952820. .
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".