MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410832611 · doi:10.1080/23311908.2025.2510738

Loneliness and insomnia in a representative sample of United States adults: investigating the effects of age, sex, and depression

2025· article· en· W4410832611 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin B. Lowe, Brian Chin

Bibliographic record

VenueCogent Psychology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
FundersTrinity College
KeywordsLonelinessPsychologyDepression (economics)Clinical psychologySample (material)Developmental psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the association between loneliness and insomnia symptoms in a large, nationally representative sample of U.S. adults. We also tested age and sex as moderators and depression as a potential mediator. Participants (N = 1,594) were recruited via Prime Panels and completed measures of insomnia, loneliness, and depression. Linear regression models assessed the relationship between loneliness and insomnia severity, adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and household income. We also tested moderation by age and sex, and mediation by depression symptoms. Loneliness was significantly and positively associated with insomnia symptom severity. Neither age nor sex moderated this association. Depression symptoms partially mediated the relationship between loneliness and insomnia. These findings suggest that the relationship between loneliness and insomnia symptoms is robust across age and sex and may be partially explained by elevated depression symptoms. Future research should investigate the directionality and causal mechanisms of these links to inform integrated interventions targeting social connection, mental health, and sleep 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.376 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCogent PsychologySame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207