Sleep Spindles Predict Stress-Related Increases in Sleep Disturbances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Predisposing factors place certain individuals at higher risk for insomnia, especially in the presence of precipitating conditions such as stressful life events. Sleep spindles have been shown to play an important role in the preservation of sleep continuity. Lower spindle density might thus constitute an objective predisposing factor for sleep reactivity to stress. The aim of this study was therefore to evaluate the relationship between baseline sleep spindle density and the prospective change in insomnia symptoms in response to a standardized academic stressor. METHODS: Twelve healthy students had a polysomnography recording during a period of lower stress at the beginning of the academic semester, along with an assessment of insomnia complaints using the insomnia severity index (ISI). They completed a second ISI assessment at the end of the semester, a period coinciding with the week prior to final examinations and thus higher stress. Spindle density, amplitude, duration, and frequency, as well as sigma power were computed from C4-O2 electroencephalography derivation during stages N2-N3 of non-rapid-eye-movement (NREM) sleep, across the whole night and for each NREM sleep period. To test for the relationship between spindle density and changes in insomnia symptoms in response to academic stress, spindle measurements at baseline were correlated with changes in ISI across the academic semester. RESULTS: Spindle density (as well as spindle amplitude and sigma power), particularly during the first NREM sleep period, negatively correlated with changes in ISI (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Lower spindle activity, especially at the beginning of the night, prospectively predicted larger increases in insomnia symptoms in response to stress. This result indicates that individual differences in sleep spindle activity contribute to the differential vulnerability to sleep disturbances in the face of precipitating factors.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".