Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41425183›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in sleep2025

Dreams are more "predictable" than you think.

Lorenzo Bertolini, Sergio Consoli, Julie Weeds

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in sleep, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Lorenzo BertoliniEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy.
Sergio ConsoliEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy.
Julie WeedsDepartment of Informatics, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: A growing body of work has used machine learning and AI tools to analyse dream reports, and compare them to other textual content. Since these tools are usually trained on text from the web, researchers have speculated they might not be suited to model dreams reports, often labeled as "unusual" and "bizarre" content. Methods: We used a set of large language models (LLMs) to encode dream reports from DreamBank and Wikipedia. To estimate the ability of LLMs to model and predict textual reports we adopted perplexity, a measure based on entropy, formally, the exponentiated log-likelihood of a sequence. Intuitively, perplexity indicates how "surprising" a sequence of words is to a model. Results: In most models, perplexity scores for dream reports were significantly lower than those for Wikipedia articles. Moreover, we found that perplexity scores were significantly different in reports produced by male vs female participants, and between blind and normally sighted individuals. In one case, we found this difference to be significant between clinical and healthy subjects. Discussion: Dream reports were found to be generally easier to model and predict than Wikipedia articles. LLMs were also found to implicitly encode group differences previously observed in the literature based on gender, visual impairment, and clinical population.

Indexed as

dreaming in blind participantsdream report analysisdream reports modelinggender differencelarge language modelsmachine learningnatural language processing

Identifiers

PMID41425183
PMCPMC12713815

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.