MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999991127 · doi:10.4103/1817-1737.91560

Sleep architecture of consolidated and split sleep due to the dawn (Fajr) prayer among Muslims and its impact on daytime sleepiness

2012· article· en· W1999991127 on OpenAlex
Ahmed S. BaHammam, MunirM Sharif, Seithikurippu R. Pandi‐Perumal

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

VenueAnnals of Thoracic Medicine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersNational Plan for Science, Technology and InnovationKing Abdulaziz City for Science and TechnologyKing Saud University
KeywordsPolysomnographyMedicineSleep (system call)Excessive daytime sleepinessDaytimeSleep onset latencySleep architecturePhysical therapySleep disorderInsomniaPsychiatryElectroencephalography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Muslims are required to wake up early to pray (Fajr) at dawn (approximately one and one-half hours before sunrise). Some Muslims wake up to pray Fajr and then sleep until it is time to work (split sleep), whereas others sleep continuously (consolidated sleep) until work time and pray Fajr upon awakening. AIM: To objectively assess sleep architecture and daytime sleepiness in consolidated and split sleep due to the Fajr prayer. SETTING AND DESIGN: A cross-sectional, single-center observational study in eight healthy male subjects with a mean age of 32.0 ± 2.4 years. METHODS: The participants spent three nights in the Sleep Disorders Center (SDC) at King Khalid University Hospital, where they participated in the study, which included (1) a medical checkup and an adaptation night, (2) a consolidated sleep night, and (3) a split-sleep night. Polysomnography (PSG) was conducted in the SDC following the standard protocol. Participants went to bed at 11:30 PM and woke up at 7:00 AM in the consolidated sleep protocol. In the split-sleep protocol, participants went to bed at 11:30 PM, woke up at 3:30 AM for 45 minutes, went back to bed at 4:15 AM, and finally woke up at 7:45 AM. PSG was followed by a multiple sleep latency test to assess the daytime sleepiness of the participants. RESULTS: There were no differences in sleep efficiency, the distribution of sleep stages, or daytime sleepiness between the two protocols. CONCLUSION: No differences were detected in sleep architecture or daytime sleepiness in the consolidated and split-sleep schedules when the total sleep duration was maintained.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.935

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.360 · 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