Psychological distress mediates the association between daytime sleepiness and consumption of sweetened products: cross-sectional findings in a Catholic Middle-Eastern Canadian community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the associations between consumption of sweetened products, daytime sleepiness (DS) and psychological distress (PD) in a Catholic Middle-Eastern Canadian community, and to test the hypothesis that the association between DS and consumption of sweetened products is mediated by PD. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. SETTING: A Catholic Middle-Eastern Canadian community. PARTICIPANTS: 186 men and women aged between 18 and 60 years. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Sweetened product consumption was measured using a food frequency questionnaire (total sugars/day). DS and PD were measured using standardised questionnaires. The generalised linear model was used to estimate associations between sweetened product consumption, age, sex, self-reported body mass index, DS and PD. Baron and Kenny's four-step approach in addition to the Sobel test were used to establish mediation. RESULTS: Average DS score was 8.2 (SD=4.5) with 19.5% having excessive scores (>12). Mean PD score was 20.8 (SD=6.2) with 11.8% having high distress scores. Average consumption of sweetened products was 15.5 g/day (SD=13.9). Baron and Kenny's three steps to establish partial mediation were confirmed. First, DS was associated with consumption of sweetened products (p<0.03). Second, DS and PD were correlated (r=0.197; p<0.04). Third, PD was associated with consumption of sweetened products (p<0.01) when both PD and DS were entered as predictors in a multivariate regression. However, Baron and Kenny's fourth step to establish complete mediation was not met. The effect of DS on consumption of sweetened products controlling for PD was reduced, but it was not zero. Finally, the Sobel test was significant (2.14; p<0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The association between DS and consumption of sweetened products in the Catholic Middle-Eastern Canadian community is partially mediated by psychological distress. Further work should test this mediation relationship in larger samples and verify the potential effects of other sleep variables in this relationship.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".