Self‐Reported Sleep Problems Prospectively Increase Risk of Disability: Findings from the Survey of Midlife Development in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether subjective poor sleep prospectively increases functional limitations and incident disability in a national sample of adults living in the United States. DESIGN: Prospective cohort. SETTING: Longitudinal Survey of Midlife Development in the United States (MIDUS). PARTICIPANTS: Young, middle-aged, and older men and women (aged 24-75) surveyed in 1995/96 (MIDUS 1) and followed up in 2004-06 (MIDUS 2). Complete data were available for 3,620 respondents. MEASUREMENTS: Data were from telephone interviews and self-administered questionnaires. Participant reported chronic sleep problems within the prior month; functional limitations were assessed using the Functional Status Questionnaire. Demographic (age, sex, race), socioeconomic (educational attainment), health (chronic conditions, depression), and health behavior (obesity, smoking) covariates were assessed to reduce potential confounding. RESULTS: Approximately 11% of the sample reported chronic sleep problems at both MIDUS waves. Average number of activity of daily living (ADL) and instrumental activity of daily living (IADL) limitations increased significantly between MIDUS 1 (ADL limitations: 0.06; IADL limitations: 0.95) and MIDUS 2 (ADL limitations: 0.15; IADL limitations: 1.6; P < .001). Adjusted regression models estimating change in ADL scores showed that chronic sleep problems at MIDUS 1 predicted significantly greater increases in ADL (incident rate ratio (IRR) = 1.55, P < .001) and IADL (IRR = 1.28, P < .001) limitations. In those with no functional limitations at baseline, logistic regression models showed that chronic sleep problems significantly increased the odds of incident ADL (odds ratio (OR) = 2.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.68-3.24, P < .001) and IADL (OR = 1.70, 95% CI = 1.21-2.42, P = .002) disability. CONCLUSION: Reports of chronic sleep problems predicted greater risk of onset of and increases in functional limitations 9 to 10 years later. Poor sleep may be a robust and independent risk factor for disability in adults of all ages.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".