Saturday, January 10, 2026

 

Improving sleep isn’t enough: researchers highlight daytime function as key to assessing insomnia treatments




University of Maryland School of Medicine

Better Way to Assess Insomnia Treatments 

image: 

N/A

view more 

Credit: University of Maryland School of Medicine





About one in nine adults suffer from chronic insomnia and its residual effects like drowsiness, cognitive issues, and irritability as well as increased health risks like diabetes and heart risks if left untreated.  While many treatments are available, the challenge lies in determining how well a medication or other sleep aid works in individual patients.

Now a new study from the University of Maryland School of Medicine has found using real-time smartphone-based assessments can help to determine the effectiveness of sleep medications by detecting improvements in daytime insomnia symptoms including thinking, fatigue, and mood. Following a two-week course of treatment, this smartphone-based assessment approach  detected treatment effects more powerfully than did traditional methods like recall questionnaires.

Results were published in JAMA Network Open.

The clinical trial involved 40 older adults ages 60 to 85 with chronic insomnia who were randomly assigned to take the sleep medication suvorexant or a placebo for 16 nights. Both groups used a smartphone app to record their daytime insomnia symptoms in real-time, four times per day throughout the study. Participants also completed traditional questionnaires assessing their sleep patterns and daytime symptoms both before and after treatment.

Key Findings

  • Traditional questionnaires detected an overall improvement in insomnia severity between the treatment and placebo groups, but detected no significant differences in daytime symptoms.
  • The smartphone-based assessment approach, called ecological momentary assessment (EMA), revealed subtle and important differences between the two groups: Compared to a placebo, suvorexant increased fatigue in the morning, but reduced fatigue in the afternoon and evening. Likewise, alert cognition was lower early in the day in the suvorexant group but normalized as the day progressed.
  • Participants who took suvorexant reported numerically worse moods at all 4 times of day compared to those who took a placebo, although differences were not statistically significant. 
  • Participants found the smartphone assessment was easy to use, with a completion rate of 93.3% across all surveys, demonstrating feasibility and strong engagement.

“Daytime symptoms such as fatigue, cognitive impairment, and mood disturbances are core features of insomnia,” said study corresponding author Emerson M. Wickwire, PhD, faculty member at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and section chief of sleep medicine at the University of Maryland Medical Center. “Improving sleep is not enough. We need to determine how well treatments improve daytime functioning, which patients report matters most. In this study we found that retrospective questionnaires failed to detect subtle treatment-related changes that were detected via the smartphone assessment.”

Implications for Patients and Doctors

This is the first randomized controlled trial to incorporate a smartphone EMA as an outcome measure in a sleep-focused clinical trial. It was able to detect clear treatment effects at various times of the day and was found to be easy to use and sustainable. Leveraging wearables and smartphones for real-time, multimethod assessment should be considered in future studies that evaluate treatment for insomnia as well as other sleep disorders including obstructive sleep apnea and excessive sleepiness that leads to prolonged sleep.

“These findings address a critical gap in sleep disorders clinical care and research,” said Dr. Wickwire. “When viewed as a complement to traditional approaches, EMA offers a sensitive and patient-centered way to measure treatment effects throughout the day, in real-time. Such approaches could transform how we evaluate sleep treatments, personalize sleep medicine care, and ultimately improve outcomes for the millions of Americans with sleep disorders.”

Shuo Chen, PhD, Professor of Epidemiology & Public Health at UMSOM, Avelino Verceles, MD, MS, Professor of Medicine at UMSOM, and University of Maryland graduate student Jingsong Zhou, MS were co-authors on this study.  Funding for this study was supported in part by a research grant from the Investigator-Initiated Studies Program of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc.

“This research underscores the potential for innovative  digital tools to be used in conducting comparative effectiveness studies,” said UMSOM Dean  Mark T. Gladwin, MD, who is the Vice President for Medical Affairs, University of Maryland, Baltimore (UMB), and the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and Dean at UMSOM. "Smartphone-based assessments can provide real-time insights that help improve patient outcomes across a range of common conditions.”

 

Personalizing cancer treatments significantly improve outcome success


Study is first in the world to show that using molecular testing to customize cancer treatments based on a patient’s tumor DNA is safe, effective and achievable



University of California - San Diego

Jason Sicklick, University of California San Diego 

image: 

Jason Sicklick, MD, who led the study, is a professor of surgery and pharmacology at UC San Diego School of Medicine and surgical oncologist at UC San Diego Health.

view more 

Credit: UC San Diego Health




Researchers at University of California San Diego School of Medicine have led the first clinical trial in the world to show that cancer drug treatments can be safely and effectively personalized based on the unique DNA of a patient’s tumor.

The study results, published in the January 8, 2026 online edition of Journal of Clinical Oncology found that individualizing multi-drug treatments to each patient’s specific tumor mutations using molecular testing can significantly enhance treatment success.

“Every patient and every cancer is unique, and so should how we treat for them,” said Jason Sicklick, MD, senior author of the study, professor of surgery and pharmacology at UC San Diego School of Medicine and surgical oncologist at UC San Diego Health. “Our findings demonstrate that precision oncology at the individual level is achievable. When every patient’s treatment is guided by their tumor’s distinctive DNA, we can treat cancer with better accuracy.”

The clinical trial, known as Investigation of Profile-Related Evidence Determining Individualized Cancer Therapy (I-PREDICT), used advanced genomic sequencing to identify the genomic changes driving each person’s cancer. Clinicians then developed personalized treatment plans using FDA-approved drugs, with doses carefully adjusted for each patient to precisely target those molecular alterations — the opposite of a one-size-fits-all approach.

Among a cohort of 210 patients with advanced cancers that were treated, nearly 95% had distinct tumor DNA profiles — no two cancers were alike. This led to 157 different treatment regimens, including 103 new drug pairings that had never been tested together before. Patients whose therapies were most closely matched to their tumor mutations experienced better treatment results, improving their chances for response and survival. Importantly, those who received new drug combinations did not experience more severe side effects than patients receiving standard therapies.

The study also found that starting new drug mixes at lower doses and carefully increasing them over time kept treatments safe, even with therapies that had never been used together before.

“The I-PREDICT study shows what’s possible when we let a patient’s biology guide their treatment,” said Shumei Kato, MD, associate professor of medicine at UC San Diego School of Medicine and medical oncologist at UC San Diego Health. “By using biomarkers to select drugs and adjust doses, we can design combinations that precisely target the drivers of each person’s cancer.”

“Innovative clinical trial design is a central part of what we do at Moores Cancer Center,” said Diane Simeone, MD, director of Moores Cancer Center at UC San Diego Health. “This study reflects the strength of our multi-disciplinary team-based approach, combining scientific leadership, clinical trial expertise and the infrastructure needed to bring discoveries directly to patients. It’s a powerful example of how we’re shaping the future of precision oncology and placing the patient at the center of every decision.”

Both Sicklick and Kato are members of UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center, which served as a key partner in supporting the clinical trial.

Moores Cancer Center at UC San Diego Health is the region’s only National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. They are consistently ranked among the top 50 in the nation for cancer care by U.S. News & World Report.

Sicklick, who is also co-leader of the structural and functional genomics program at Moores Cancer Center, adds that this research marks a turning point for cancer treatment. 

“Instead of a one-size-fits-all, we’re moving toward one-size-fits-one,” said Sicklick.

The research builds upon earlier findings published in Nature Medicine (2019) and Genome Medicine (2022) that analyzed subsets of the I-PREDICT cohort. The new publication expands this work, including more patients and longer follow-up, while offering detailed guidance on how other organizations can replicate precision cancer care strategies.

This study lays the groundwork for a future randomized trial designed to confirm the benefits of this personalized precision oncology approach.

Additional co-authors of the study include Daisuke Nishizaki, Hirotaka Miyashita, Ryosuke Okamura, Michael E. Hahn, Mina Nikanjam, Paul T. Fanta, David E. Piccioni, Hitendra Patel, Ramez N. Eskander, Rana R. McKay, Jeffrey S. Ross, J. Jack Lee, Scott M. Lippman, Shumei Kato, and Razelle Kurzrock, MD, all at UC San Diego.

Funding support for the study came, in part, from Foundation Medicine, the Joan and Irwin Jacobs Foundation, Jon Strong, and the National Institutes of Health (P30 CA023100).

# # #

 

UW researchers analyzed which anthologized writers and books get checked out the most from Seattle Public Library




University of Washington




Seattle Public Library, or SPL, is the only U.S. library system that makes its anonymized, granular checkout data public. Want to find out how many times people borrowed the e-book version of Toni Morrison’s “Beloved” in May 2018? That data is available. 

The hitch is that the library’s data set contains nearly 50 million rows, and a single title can appear variously. Morrison’s “Beloved,” for instance, is listed as “Beloved,” “Beloved (unabridged),” “Beloved : a novel / by Toni Morrison” and so on. 

To track trends in the catalogue over the last 20 years, University of Washington researchers analyzed the checkout data of the 93 authors included in the post-1945 volume of “The Norton Anthology of American Literature.” It’s assigned in U.S. English classes more than virtually any other anthology, so it’s instrumental in standardizing what’s thought of as the contemporary American canon — the books and writers we’ve deemed culturally important. 

The team found that among these vaunted writers — including Morrison, Viet Thanh Nguyen, David Foster Wallace and Joan Didion — science fiction was particularly popular. Ursula K. Le Guin and Octavia E. Butler topped the list. 

The team published its findings Nov. 21 in Computational Humanities Research 2025, and created an interactive website for exploring the data

“It’s kind of mind-boggling and ironic that in this age of abundant data, we have so little data about what people are reading,” said senior author Melanie Walsh, a UW assistant professor in the Information School. “Book sales data is notoriously hard to get, particularly for researchers, so I’ve been obsessed with SPL’s data for years now. But extracting insights from it is actually a really hard computational and bibliographic modeling problem.”

To organize the data, the team used computational methods, such as stripping away subtitles and standardizing punctuation. They also manually identified things like translations of a work. 

“We worked with the Norton anthology in part because it's a small enough scale for us to handle,” said lead author Neel Gupta, a UW doctoral student in the Information School. “It allows us to have a ground truth to work off of. We can still put a human eye on things.” 

In all the team looked at 1,603 works by the 93 authors, which were checked out a total of 980,620 times since 2005. 

The 10 top authors were: 

  1. Ursula K. Le Guin

  2. Octavia E. Butler

  3. Louise Erdrich

  4. N.K. Jemisin

  5. Toni Morrison

  6. Kurt Vonnegut

  7. George Saunders

  8. Philip K. Dick

  9. Sherman Alexie

  10. James Baldwin

The 10 top books were: 

  1. “Parable of the Sower” by Octavia E. Butler

  2. “Lincoln in the Bardo” by George Saunders

  3. “The Fifth Season” by N.K. Jemisin

  4. “The Sympathizer” by Viet Thanh Nguyen

  5. “Kindred” by Octavia E. Butler

  6. “Beloved” by Toni Morrison

  7. “The Left Hand of Darkness” by Ursula K. Le Guin

  8. “The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian” by Sherman Alexie

  9. “The Year of Magical Thinking” by Joan Didion

  10. “The Sentence” by Louise Erdrich

Researchers noted several trends that may have driven checkouts. In general, books with genre and sci-fi elements were some of the most popular. 

“I found the prevalence of sci-fi books and writers really interesting,” Gupta said. “These are recent additions to the anthology, since sci-fi and genre fiction haven’t always been seen as important literature. So while it’s a bit unsurprising, it’s also striking to see that despite comprising a small portion of the anthology, these are the authors people are actually reading the most.”

News events also drove spikes in readership, such as film adaptations of James Baldwin’s “If Beale Street Could Talk” and Don DeLillo’s “White Noise,” or the deaths of authors such as Didion, Wallace, Morrison and Philip Roth. 

The top book, “Parable of the Sower,” saw a huge spike in readership in 2024 — the year the futuristic novel is set, and the year SPL selected the novel for its Seattle Reads program. 

“We’ve deemed these canonical authors important enough to continue reading, to continue teaching, to continue studying and talking about, so it’s fascinating to see who we’re actually reading and when,” Walsh said. “I find it very beautiful that after years of these big debates about diversifying the canon, the works that people are turning to the most are by women and Black and Native writers, who previously were not even included in these anthologies.”

Co-authors include Daniella Maor, Karalee Harris, Emily Backstrom and Hongyuan Dong, all students at the UW. This research was supported in part by the 2025 Humanities Data Science Summer Institute.

For more information, contact Walsh at melwalsh@uw.edu and Gupta at ngupta1@uw.edu.