MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131050520 · doi:10.1081/cbi-100102116

FAILURE OF EXTRAOCULAR LIGHT TO FACILITATE CIRCADIAN RHYTHM REENTRAINMENT IN HUMANS

2000· article· en· W2131050520 on OpenAlexaff
Charmane I. Eastman, Stacia K. Martin, Marc Hébert

Bibliographic record

VenueChronobiology International · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCircadian rhythm and melatonin
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsCircadian rhythmEntrainment (biomusicology)MelatoninLight effects on circadian rhythmFree-running sleepSuprachiasmatic nucleusRhythmStimulus (psychology)Dark therapyPhase response curveLight intensityBiologyCircadian clockNeurosciencePsychologyInternal medicineMedicineOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although extraocular light can entrain the circadian rhythms of invertebrates and nonmammalian vertebrates, almost all studies show that the mammalian circadian system can only be affected by light to the eyes. The exception is a recent study by Campbell and Murphy that reported phase shifts in humans to bright light applied with fiber-optic pads behind the knees (popliteal region). We tested whether this extraocular light stimulus could accelerate the entrainment of circadian rhythms to a shift of the sleep schedule, as occurs in shift work or jet lag. In experiment 1, the sleep/dark episodes were delayed 8h from baseline for 2 days, and 3h light exposures were timed to occur before the temperature minimum to help delay circadian rhythms. There were three groups: (1) bright (about 13,000 lux) extraocular light from fiber-optic pads, (2) control (dim light, 10-20 lux), and (3) medium-intensity (about 1000 lux) ocular light from light boxes. In experiment 2, the sleep/dark episodes were inverted, and extraocular light was applied either before the temperature minimum to help delay circadian rhythms or after the temperature minimum to help advance rhythms. Circadian phase markers were the salivary dim light melatonin onset (DLMO) and the rectal temperature minimum. There was no evidence that the popliteal extraocular light had a phase-shifting effect in either experiment. Possible reasons for phase shifts in the Campbell and Murphy study and not the current study include the many differences between the protocols. In the current study, there was substantial sleep deprivation before the extraocular light was applied. There was a large shift in the sleep/dark schedule, rather than allowing subjects to sleep each day from midnight to noon, as in the Campbell and Murphy study. Also, when extraocular light was applied in the current protocol, subjects did not experience a change from sleeping to awake, a change in posture (from lying in bed to sitting in a chair), or a change in ocular light (from dark to dim light). Further research is necessary to determine the conditions under which extraocular light might produce phase shifts in human circadian rhythms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations74
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChronobiology InternationalSame topicCircadian rhythm and melatoninFrench-language works237,207