Chronotype and Sex Effects on Sleep Architecture and Quantitative Sleep EEG in Healthy Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the influence of chronotype (morning types and evening types) on sleep stages and quantitative sleep electroencephalograms when constraints on the sleep schedule are minimal and when sex difference is taken into account. DESIGN: A 48-hour session in the laboratory, including 2 nights of polysomnography, preceded by 7 days of ambulatory actigraphy. SETTING: Chronobiology laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four healthy young subjects: 12 morning types and 12 evening types selected by questionnaire. Each group included 6 men and 6 women. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: A polysomnography night of 8 hours in duration was recorded according to preferred sleep schedule. Sleep-stage analysis revealed that morning types and evening types did not differ in sleep architecture. However, morning-type men showed a higher percentage of stage 1 sleep and lower sleep efficiency than evening-type men. Electroencephalogram spectral analysis was conducted in non-rapid eye movement sleep for 6 frequency bands. Morning types had more spectral power in low sigma (12-14 Hz) compared with evening types. The most robust difference between women and men was found in high sigma (14-16 Hz) and was not present between chronotypes. The decay rate of slow-wave activity (1-5 Hz) tended to be faster in morning types compared with evening types (P = .06). This rate was almost identical for women and men. CONCLUSIONS: These results agree with the hypothesis that homeostatic sleep regulation differs between morning types and evening types, with morning types showing indications of a higher rate of dissipation of sleep pressure during the night. Morningness-eveningness seems to affect sleep in a sex-specific manner, with men being more affected by their chronotype.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".