Sustained sleep restriction reduces emotional and physical well-being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic insufficient sleep is a common finding in many pain-related and other medical diseases and is frequently experienced in the general population. Prolonged curtailment of nocturnal sleep has been studied for its adverse effect on cognitive functioning and subjective tiredness, but relatively little is known about its effect on mood and physical symptoms. OBJECTIVE: In order to test whether sleep restriction to 50% of the habitual time over 12 days affects diurnal and day-to-day variation of subjective ratings of mood and physical symptoms, 108 adjectives and statements were self-rated using visual analog scales every 2h during the waking period. DESIGN: Randomized, 16-day controlled in-laboratory study. SETTING: General Clinical Research Center (GCRC). PARTICIPANTS: Forty healthy subjects aged 21-40 years (14 females, 26 males). INTERVENTION: Subjects were randomized to either 4h of sleep per night (11 pm-3 am, N=22) or 8h of sleep per night (11 pm-7 am, N=18) for 12 consecutive days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Changes in the factor-derived variables optimism-sociability, tiredness-fatigue, anger-aggression, bodily discomfort, and items constituting bodily discomfort were compared between groups. RESULTS: Optimism-sociability progressively declined over consecutive days of sleep restriction by 15%. Bodily discomfort showed a slight, but significant interindividual increase of 3% across days of sleep restriction due to significant increases of generalized body pain, back pain, and stomach pain. Optimism-sociability and tiredness-fatigue showed diurnal variations with a quadratic function period within each day in both conditions. CONCLUSION: The data suggest that chronic insufficient sleep may contribute to the onset and amplification of pain and affect health by compromising optimistic outlook and psychosocial functioning.
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) | 0.002 | 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".