Thematic trends and knowledge structure on cognitive behavior therapy for insomnia: A bibliometric and visualization analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To find publications trend about cognitive behavior therapy for insomnia (CBTI) using bibliometric and visualization analysis. In this study, the authors sought to identify the publication trends of peer-reviewed articles about CBTI.Analyses were focused on the past 18 years from 2004 to 2021. All searches were performed on the Web of Science Core Collection database. The search was repeated to include structural cognitive behavior therapy for insomnia. Quantitative analysis was assessed using the bibliometric tool. Visualization analysis was carried out using VOSviewer.In the 736 articles reviewed, the number of publications has been increasing every year for the past 18 years. Behavioral sleep medicine and sleep were the most active journals published on CBTI. The United States and Canada had the highest scientific publications in the field. Morin CM and Espie CA were the most active authors. The study type mostly observed were randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and epidemiological. Publications on digital-based cognitive behavior therapy and accessibility to primary care settings represent the future trends of research on CBTI.Possible explanations for CBTI publication trends were discussed, including the emergence of the evidence-based therapy, feasibility, and scalability. Potential CBTI publications trends in the future and clinical implications were also discussed.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
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 | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".