Does the Association Between Self-Reported Restless Sleep and Objective Sleep Efficiency Differ in Obese and Non-Obese Women? Findings From the Kingston Senior Women Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our study assessed the validity of self-reported restless sleep (SRRS) in measuring sleep efficiency and the degree to which these measures differed depending on obesity status in older women. Data were from 100 participants enrolled in the Kingston Senior Women Study. Participants recorded SRRS for 7 consecutive nights. Sleep efficiency measures were recorded nightly through actigraphy. Repeated-measures multilevel logistic analysis was used. Mean sleep efficiency was 87% ( SE = 1.09), SRRS occurred in 37% ( SE = 3) of nights. Obesity status moderated the association between sleep efficiency and SRRS (odds ratio [OR] = 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.02, 1.14]) when controlling for age, medication intake, and depressive symptoms. Higher sleep efficiency reduced the odds of SRRS in non-obese women, but no association was shown in obese women. The lack of correspondence between objective and subjective measures in obese women suggests that SRRS may not be as indicative of sleep quality in obese compared with non-obese older women.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".