Slow release caffeine and prolonged (64‐h) continuous wakefulness: effects on vigilance and cognitive performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some long work or shift work schedules necessitate an elevated and prolonged level of vigilance and performance but often result in sleep deprivation (SD), fatigue and sleepiness, which may impair efficiency. This study investigated the effects of a slow-release caffeine [(SRC) at the daily dose of 600 mg] on vigilance and cognitive performance during a 64 h continuous wakefulness period. Sixteen healthy males volunteered for this double-blind, randomised, placebo controlled, two-way crossover study. A total of 300-mg SRC or placebo (PBO) was given twice a day at 21:00 and 9:00 h during the SD period. Vigilance was objectively assessed with continuous electroencephalogram (EEG), the multiple sleep latency tests (MSLT) and wrist actigraphy. Cognitive functions (information processing and working memory), selective and divided attention were determined with computerised tests from the AGARD-NATO STRES Battery (Standardised Tests for Research with Environmental Stressors). Attention was also assessed with a symbol cancellation task and a Stroop's test; alertness was appreciated from visual analogue scales (VAS). Tests were performed at the hypo (02:00-04:00 h, 14:00-16:00 h) and hypervigilance (10:00-12:00 h, 22:00-00:00 h) periods during SD. Central temperature was continuously measured and safety of treatment was assessed from repeated clinical examinations. Compared with PBO, MSLT showed that SRC subjects were more vigilant from the onset (P=0.001) to the end of SD (P < 0.0001) whereas some cognitive functions were improved till the thirty third of SD but others were ameliorated through all the SD period and alertness was better from the thirteenth hour of SD, as shown by Stroop's test (P=0.048). We showed that 300-mg SRC given twice daily during a 64-h SD is able to antagonize the impairment produced on vigilance and cognitive functions.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".