Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although light is accepted as the dominant zeitgeber for entrainment of the human circadian system, there is evidence that nonphotic stimuli may play a role. This review critically assesses the current evidence in support of nonphotic entrainment in humans. Studies involving manipulations of sleep-wake schedules, exercise, mealtimes, and social stimuli are re-examined, bearing in mind the fact that the human circadian clock is sensitive to very dim light and has a free-running period very close to 24 h. Because of light confounds, the study of totally blind subjects with free-running circadian rhythms represents the ideal model to investigate the effects of nonphotic stimuli on circadian phase and period. Strong support for nonphotic entrainment in humans has already come from the study of a few blind subjects with entrained circadian rhythms. However, in these studies the nonphotic stimulus(i) responsible was not identified. The effect of appropriately timed exercise or exogenous melatonin represents the best proof to date of an effect of nonphotic stimuli on human circadian timing. Phase-response curves for both exercise and melatonin have been constructed. Given the powerful effect of feeding as a circadian zeitgeber in various nonhuman species, studies of meal timing are recommended. In conclusion, the available evidence indicates that it remains worthwhile to continue to study nonphotic effects on human circadian timing to identify treatment strategies for shift workers and transmeridian travelers as well as for the blind and possibly the elderly.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".