Inflammation, Oxidative Stress, and Antioxidants Contribute to Selected Sleep Quality and Cardiometabolic Health Relationships: A Cross‐Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sleep is vital for cardiometabolic health, but a societal shift toward poor sleep is a prominent feature of many modern cultures. Concurrently, factors such as diet and lifestyle have also changed and may mediate the relationship between sleep quality and cardiometabolic health. Objectives were to explore (1) the interrelationship and (2) mediating effect of inflammation, oxidative stress, and antioxidants on sleep quality and cardiometabolic health. Cross-sectional data from the US National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey 2005-06 (≥20 y; N = 2,072) was used. Cardiometabolic health was defined as per the Joint Interim Statement; overall sleep quality was determined from six sleep habits and categorized as good, fair, poor, and very poor. Fair quality sleepers had optimal inflammation, oxidative stress, and antioxidant levels. Inflammation was above the current clinical reference range across all sleep quality categories, while oxidative stress was only within the clinical reference range for fair sleep quality. Selected sleep quality-cardiometabolic health relationships were mediated by inflammation, oxidative stress, and antioxidants and were moderated by sex. Our results provide initial evidence of a potential role for inflammation, oxidative stress, and antioxidants in the pathway between poor sleep quality-cardiometabolic decline. Further prospective research is needed to confirm our results.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".