MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1596178914 · doi:10.1186/1471-2377-4-6

Sleep assessment in a population-based study of chronic fatigue syndrome

2004· article· en· W1596178914 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Neurology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Sleep Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEpworth Sleepiness ScaleInsomniaSomnolenceChronic fatigue syndromeSleep apneaExcessive daytime sleepinessPolysomnographyPopulationSleep disorderOdds ratioRestless legs syndromeAbnormalityPhysical therapySleep deprivationObstructive sleep apneaInternal medicinePsychiatryApneaCircadian rhythmAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a disabling condition that affects approximately 800,000 adult Americans. The pathophysiology remains unknown and there are no diagnostic markers or characteristic physical signs or laboratory abnormalities. Most CFS patients complain of unrefreshing sleep and many of the postulated etiologies of CFS affect sleep. Conversely, many sleep disorders present similarly to CFS. Few studies characterizing sleep in unselected CFS subjects have been published and none have been performed in cases identified from population-based studies. METHODS: The study included 339 subjects (mean age 45.8 years, 77% female, 94.1% white) identified through telephone screen in a previously described population-based study of CFS in Wichita, Kansas. They completed questionnaires to assess fatigue and wellness and 2 self-administered sleep questionnaires. Scores for five of the six sleep factors (insomnia/hypersomnia, non-restorative sleep, excessive daytime somnolence, sleep apnea, and restlessness) in the Centre for Sleep and Chronobiology's Sleep Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) were dichotomized based on threshold. The Epworth Sleepiness Scale score was used as a continuous variable. RESULTS: 81.4% of subjects had an abnormality in at least one SAQ sleep factor. Subjects with sleep factor abnormalities had significantly lower wellness scores but statistically unchanged fatigue severity scores compared to those without SAQ abnormality. CFS subjects had significantly increased risk of abnormal scores in the non-restorative (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 28.1; 95% confidence interval [CI]= 7.4-107.0) and restlessness (OR = 16.0; 95% CI = 4.2-61.6) SAQ factors compared to non-fatigued, but not for factors of sleep apnea or excessive daytime somnolence. This is consistent with studies finding that, while fatigued, CFS subjects are not sleepy. A strong correlation (0.78) of Epworth score was found only for the excessive daytime somnolence factor. CONCLUSIONS: SAQ factors describe sleep abnormalities associated with CFS and provide more information than the Epworth score. Validation of these promising results will require formal polysomnographic sleep studies.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it