L'insomnie. Prévalence et traitement chez les patients consultant en médecine générale.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence of insomnia and the treatments used by patients attending general practice clinics. DESIGN: Survey of outpatients. SETTING: Quebec city, Que. metropolitan area. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred eighteen patients recruited in waiting rooms of general practice clinics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants completed a survey on sleep and use of substances for insomnia, a questionnaire documenting their medical history and use of health care services, and three indices measuring presence of worry and symptoms of anxiety and depression. RESULT: Close to 38% of respondents suffered from insomnia: 26.2% had chronic insomnia and 11.4% had short-term insomnia. Prevalence was higher among women and people 35 to 54 years old. Among respondents who used substances to help them sleep, those 55 years and older consumed more prescription and medications (benzodiazepines); those 35 to 54 years old used mainly natural products; and those 16 to 34 years old consumed mainly over-the-counter medications. Respondents suffering from insomnia made heavier use of health care services and reported more worry and symptoms of anxiety and depression than those who slept well. CONCLUSION: Patients attending general practice clinics have a high prevalence of insomnia. Physicians must be on the lookout for these sleep disturbances so they can offer appropriate treatment.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it