MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415445366 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0333497

The experience and impact of living with idiopathic hypersomnia: A qualitative study of patient perspectives shared in online media

2025· article· en· W4415445366 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah Bermingham, Alexander Spalding, Elisabeth E. Bennett, David T. Plante

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsGemite Group
FundersTakeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A.
KeywordsQualitative researchSocial mediaPoint (geometry)MEDLINEQualitative analysisQuality of life (healthcare)Online discussion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Understanding the experience and impact of idiopathic hypersomnia (IH) is critical for improving diagnosis, treatment, research, drug development, and policy awareness. Currently, physician and researcher perspectives dominate the discourse on IH, often overlooking the lived experiences of those with the condition. OBJECTIVE: To understand the lived experience of IH from the patient perspective by analyzing spontaneously generated online patient-experience data. METHODS: Publicly available data were collected through iterative Google searches, manually coded, and thematically analyzed using inductive and deductive approaches to qualitative content analysis. Concept saturation was reached, ensuring comprehensive theme exploration. RESULTS: Searches identified 346 social media posts, community forums, blogs, videos, and podcasts created by 123 people with self-identified IH between 2012 and 2022. Most were female, 16-60 years old, and lived in the United States, Australia, Europe, and Canada. Symptom experiences were grouped under 10 themes: prolonged sleep, never feeling fully awake, relentless sleepiness, non-restorative sleep, difficulty in waking, automatic behavior, microsleeps and prolonged naps, cognitive difficulties, limited physical energy, and vivid dreams and hypnogogic hallucinations. Life impacts were identified and grouped under seven domains: psychological and emotional well-being, activities of daily living, injuries, relationships, work and school, physical health, and healthcare and treatment burden. DISCUSSION: This study expands the understanding of IH beyond clinician and researcher-driven perspectives and clinical descriptions and illuminates its profound impact on all aspects of life from patients' point of view. These insights can help clinicians provide better care, drive patient-centered drug development, and raise awareness of this devastating disorder.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designQualitative
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicSleep and Wakefulness Research→French-language works237,207→