Increased energy intake following sleep restriction in men and women: A one‐size‐fits‐all conclusion?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the degree of interindividual responses in energy intake (EI) to an imposed sleep restriction versus habitual sleep duration protocol. It also investigated participant (age, sex, ethnicity, and BMI) and study (study site and protocol order) characteristics as potential contributors to the variance in EI responses to sleep restriction between individuals. METHODS: ) were free of medical/sleep conditions, were nonsmokers, reported not performing shift work, and had an average sleep duration of 7 to 9 hours per night. Ad libitum, 24-hour EI was objectively assessed following sleep restriction (3.5-4 hours in bed per night) and habitual sleep (7-9 hours in bed per night) conditions. RESULTS: Large interindividual variations in EI change (ΔEI) between restricted and habitual sleep conditions were noted (-813 to 1437 kcal/d). Only phase order was associated with ΔEI (β = -568 kcal/d, 95% confidence interval for β = -921 to -215 kcal/d; P = 0.002); participants randomized to the habitual sleep condition first had greater increases in EI when sleep was restricted (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Large interindividual variations in ΔEI following sleep restriction were noted, suggesting that not all participants were negatively impacted by the effects of sleep restriction.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".