ArticleNature and science of sleep2026
The Prognostic Value of Early Treatment Factors for Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia (CBT-I) Outcomes.
Article in Nature and science of sleep, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) is the first-line treatment for chronic insomnia, yet a significant proportion of patients fail to achieve favorable outcomes. Baseline-only prognostic models show limited predictive performance, and the added value of early treatment variables remains unclear. This retrospective study aimed to investigate this issue. Methods: We retrospectively included 1059 patients who completed face-to-face group CBT-I. Post-treatment outcomes were assessed using the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), and 12-month follow-up outcomes were evaluated using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). The dataset was randomly split into training (70%) and test (30%) sets. Candidate predictors were selected using Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator, Random Forest, and eXtreme Gradient Boosting. Variables consistently identified across all three algorithms were entered into multivariable logistic regression models. Predictive performance of baseline-only and combined models (baseline plus early treatment variables) was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and Brier Score, with bootstrap resampling used for model comparison. Results: Unfavorable outcomes were observed in 32.4% of patients at post-treatment (neither ISI < 8 nor a reduction > 7) and in 44.5% at the 12-month follow-up (PSQI > 5). The combined model significantly outperformed the baseline-only model in predicting post-treatment outcomes in the test set (AUC: 0.741 vs 0.630, p < 0.001), with week 2 ISI change identified as the strongest predictor. For the 12-month follow-up, the combined model demonstrated a non-significantly higher AUC compared with the baseline-only model (0.742 vs 0.735, p > 0.05), with age emerging as the strongest predictor. Conclusion: Incorporating early treatment variables, particularly Week 2 ISI score reduction, may provide incremental value in predicting short-term CBT-I outcomes. However, the added value of early treatment variables for long-term outcomes appeared limited.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.