Sleep Pathologies in Depression and the Clinical Utility of Polysomnography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abnormal sleep accompanies many psychiatric conditions, but has long been recognized as a particularly conspicuous feature of affective disorders. More than a mere epiphenomenon, the powerful link between sleep and mood regulation is most dramatically demonstrated by the high efficacy of sleep deprivation in alleviating depression. Indeed, the sleep abnormalities that accompany depression may be due to the same neuropathologies that are responsible for its mood and cognitive symptoms. This powerful link between sleep and mood regulation makes polysomnography (PSG) a useful window into the underlying pathophysiology of depression, yet it is underused, particularly in clinical diagnosis. Recent depression research has emphasized the importance of establishing biologically relevant subtypes of depression with treatment specificity and prognostic value. PSG measures, among other biological markers, may be of importance in establishing these subtypes. Two subtypes of depression that appear to have robust biological differences, the melancholic and atypical subtypes, have recently been shown to have different sleep profiles that can aid in differential diagnosis. Further, routine use of PSG in the workup of a depressed patient would minimize the chances of misdiagnosis in those suffering from primary sleep disorders such as sleep apnea, which can present secondary mood symptoms resembling depression. Increased use of PSG in clinical psychiatric practice would enlarge the body of data available for defining new depressive subtypes in the future. It would also serve an immediate purpose in the separation of atypical, compared with melancholic, depression, and the differential diagnosis of depression from primary sleep disorders.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".