MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2395421004 · doi:10.1093/sleep/28.11.1386

Sleep and Motor Performance in On-call Internal Medicine Residents

2005· article· en· W2395421004 on OpenAlexaff
Akash D. Saxena, Charles F. George

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and Work-Related Fatigue
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActigraphyVigilance (psychology)MedicineEpworth Sleepiness ScaleSleep medicinePsychomotor learningHouse staffPhysical therapyAviation medicineInternal medicineSleep disorderPsychologyCircadian rhythmPolysomnographyFamily medicinePsychiatryInsomniaCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare vigilance and performance among internal medicine residents doing in-house call versus residents not doing in-house call. DESIGN: Prospective study of resident cohorts with repeated testing. SETTING: University Teaching Hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Internal medicine residents doing in-house call and residents not doing in-house call (pathology, endocrinology) (controls). MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Subjective sleepiness scores (daily Stanford Sleepiness Scale and Epworth Sleepiness Scale at start and end of the test period), actigraphy, and daily sleep logs as well as regular psychomotor vigilance testing using a Palm version (Walter Reed Army Institute of Research) of the Psychomotor Vigilance Test (PVT). Subjects were enrolled for a period of 28 to 32 days, which included 4 to 6 on-call nights for the internal medicine residents. Controls took call from home. Participants were compensated for their time. RESULTS: Twenty residents were evaluated, 13 internal medicine and 7 controls. Overall median reaction time was slower in the internal medicine residents (264.7 +/- 102.9 vs 239.2 +/- 26.1 milliseconds; P < .001). Internal medicine residents showed no difference in reaction time postcall versus other periods (269.9 +/- 131.2 vs 263.6 +/- 95.6; P = .65). Actigraphic sleep time was shorter during on-call than noncall nights and in internal medicine residents as compared with controls (287.48 +/- 143.8 vs 453.49 +/- 178.5 and 476.08 +/- 71.9 minutes; P < .001). Internal medicine residents had significantly greater major and minor reaction-time lapses compared with controls (1.26 +/- 3.4 vs 0.53 +/- 1.1 & 2.4 +/- 7.4 vs 0.45 +/- 1.0; P < .001). They reported increased sleepiness on postcall days compared with the start of their call (Stanford Sleepiness Scale: 3.26 +/- 1.2 vs 2.22 +/- 0.8; P < .001) but had scores similar to those of controls by their next call (2.22 +/- 0.8 vs 2.07 +/- 0.8; P = .13). CONCLUSIONS: Internal medicine residents have impaired reaction time and reduced vigilance compared with controls. Despite subjective improvements in sleepiness postcall, there was no change in their objective performance across the study period, suggesting no recovery. Internal medicine residents did not get extra sleep on postcall nights in an attempt to recover their lost sleep time. Implications for residents' well-being and patient care remain unclear.

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 score0.005

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations51
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicSleep and Work-Related FatigueFrench-language works237,207