MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414565437 · doi:10.1093/ijpp/riaf077

Is bigger better? Analysis of efficacy and safety of lemborexant 5 versus 10 mg in insomnia patients

2025· article· en· W4414565437 on OpenAlexaffabout
Eugene Chang, Aaron M Tejani

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Pharmacy Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaFraser HealthVancouver General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsomniaHarmSafety profileRisk assessmentClinical efficacy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess the rationale for using lemborexant 10 mg as a starting dose or for those with partial response to 5 mg for the management of insomnia. METHODS: A review of MEDLINE, regulatory reports, and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health data was conducted. KEY FINDINGS: Lemborexant 10 mg as an initial dose offers minimal improvement in sleep metrics over 5 mg but increases somnolence risk. No evidence supports dose escalation for partial responders to 5 mg. CONCLUSION: Lemborexant 10 mg is generally not advisable as an initial or escalated dose due to higher harm risk and unlikely clinical benefit.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.390 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Pharmacy PracticeSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207