L'insomnie. Prévalence et traitement chez les patients consultant en médecine générale.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".