Effects of partial sleep deprivation on reaction time in anesthesiologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Fatigue in anesthesiologists may have implications that extend beyond individual well‐being. Aim The aim of the present study was to evaluate the impact of sleep deprivation on the reaction time in anesthesiologists either after an overnight call or regular working hours. Moderation of this effect by coping strategies was observed. Methods Psychomotor vigilance test was used to assess reaction time in 23 anesthesiologists at two time‐points: (i) on a regular non‐call day and (ii) after a 17‐h in‐house call. Student's paired t ‐test was used to compare Psychomotor Vigilance Task data at these two moments. Change score regression was performed to determine the association between coping strategies, assessed using the Coping Strategy Indicator instrument, and decline in reaction time after night call. Results Twenty‐one colleagues completed the psychomotor vigilance test measurements after two decided to end their participation for personal reasons. Post‐call psychomotor vigilance test mean reaction time decreased by an average of 31.2 ms (95% CI: 0.5, 61.9; P = 0.047) when compared to regular day. Reliance on specific coping mechanisms, indicated by Coping Strategy Indicator scale scores, included problem‐solving (28 ± 4), followed by seeking social support (23 ± 5) and avoidance (19 ± 4). The change score regression model ( r 2 = 0.48) found that greater reliance on avoidance was associated with greater increase in reaction time after night call. Conclusion Reaction time increased considerably in anesthesiologists after a night call duty. Greater subjective reliance on avoidance as a coping strategy was associated with greater deterioration in performance.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".