The longitudinal course of sleep timing and circadian preferences in adults with bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To study the longitudinal course of sleep timing and circadian preferences in individuals with bipolar disorder (BP) compared to individuals with non-BP psychopathology and healthy controls. METHODS: Individuals with bipolar I and bipolar II disorder (n = 257), non-BP psychopathology (n = 105), and healthy controls (n = 55) (mean age 40.2 years, 21.3% male, 85.1% Caucasian) were followed on average every 27 months for a mean of four years. Sleep timing parameters and circadian preference were reported using the Sleep Timing Questionnaire and The Composite Scale for Morningness. Group comparisons were adjusted for multiple comparisons and between-group differences in demographic variables and psychopharmacological treatment. RESULTS: Regardless of their current mood state, individuals with BP showed more sleep onset latency (SOL), wakening after sleep onset (WASO), and evening preference in comparison to both individuals with non-BP psychopathology and healthy controls. Individuals with BP also showed less stability of bed and awakening times in comparison to the other two groups, though these results were dependent on mood state. Non-BP individuals only showed more WASO and less stability in bed and awakening times before work/school days than healthy controls. Adjusting for comorbid disorders yielded similar results. Within-group analyses found little to no effect of time and BP subtype on sleep timing and circadian preference. CONCLUSIONS: Disturbances of sleep timing are prominent in individuals with BP. These disturbances are worse during mood episodes, but still apparent during euthymic periods. Evening preference was not associated with polarity type, or mood state in BP, suggesting that this characteristic may be a trait marker.
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) | 0.001 | 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".