Sex Differences in Phase Angle of Entrainment and Melatonin Amplitude in Humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of sex differences in the timing of human circadian rhythms have reported conflicting results. This may be because the studies conducted to date have not controlled for the masking effects of the rest activity cycle on the circadian rhythms being assessed. In the present analysis of data collected under controlled conditions, we examined sex differences in the timing of circadian rhythms while minimizing masking from behavioral and environmental factors using a constant routine (CR) protocol. All participants (28 women and 28 men paired by habitual wake time; age range, 18 30 years) maintained a regular self selected sleep wake schedule at home prior to the study. After 3 baseline days in the laboratory, participants began a CR. Women were found to have a significantly higher melatonin amplitude and lower temperature amplitude than men. While sleep timing was the same between the 2 groups, the timing of the circadian rhythms of core body temperature and pineal melatonin secretion was earlier relative to sleep time in women as compared to men. Sleep therefore occurred at a later biological time for women than men, despite being at the same clock time. Given that sleep propensity and structure vary with circadian phase and are impacted by circulating melatonin, these findings may have important implications for understanding sex differences in sleep timing and duration, diurnal preference, and the prevalence of sleep disorders such as insomnia.
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".