Is Objective Short Sleep a Proxy for Frequent Insomnia?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the relationship between insomnia frequency and objective short sleep, a phenotype of insomnia. The hypothesis is that individuals with objective short sleep simply have more nights of insomnia per week. Data from a randomised controlled trial of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Insomnia combined with zolpidem and/or additional maintenance sessions were analysed. Insomnia frequency was derived from pre-treatment sleep diaries, using two definitions: nights with self-reported sleep latency (SL) or wake after sleep onset (WASO) > 30 min, and nights with self-reported sleep duration < 6 h. Objective short sleep was assessed via PSG sleep study, using < 6 h as the threshold. Results showed that objective short sleep was associated with more frequent insomnia when defined as nights with sleep duration < 6 h (8.1 ± 4.2 vs. 5.9 ± 3.7 nights/fortnight for short sleepers vs. normal sleepers, respectively), but not for nights with SL or WASO > 30 min. While insomnia frequency may partially explain objective short sleep, other factors likely influence this phenotype. Further studies are needed to explore the mechanisms underlying objective short sleep 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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".