0231 THE ASSOCIATION OF SLEEP PATTERNS WITH RISK-RELATED DECISION-MAKING AND PLANNING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While experimental sleep restriction data showed altered frontal lobe activation and risk-taking tendency among youths, we investigated if naturalistic sleep patterns were also related to youth’s executive functions, including planning and risk-taking. A convenient sample of college students (N=194) completed a sleep diary and wore an actigraph-watch for 5 days to measure their average and variability (standard deviation, SD) of total-sleep-time and mid-sleep-time. Sleep restriction referred to less than 6 hours of sleep with reference to the National Sleep Foundation. Participants also completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and Composite Scale of Morningness (CSM). On the 6th day, they completed the Tower of London and Risky-gain Task at 1-2pm as measures of their planning and risk-taking, respectively. The sample had a mean total-sleep-time of 7.1h (SD=1.1h) on sleep diary and 7.4h (SD=1.0h) on actigraphy, PSQI of 6.4 (SD=2.4) and CSM of 29.2 (SD=5.6). Correlational analyses showed that selection of risky choices following punishment trials was related to variability of mid-sleep-time (actigraphy, r=.160, p=.038, and sleep diary, r=.202, p=.033), apart from higher PSQI, p=.157, p=.032, and lower CSM (eveningness), r=-.173, p=.019. Number of steps in completing the Tower of London task was correlated with lower alertness after wake-up in the morning (CSM subscale), r=-.172, p=.017. Total-sleep-time and its variability were not correlated with risk-taking or planning. Independent t-test showed youths with or without habitual sleep restriction did not differ on measures of risk-taking or planning. Contrary to experimental data on sleep restriction, here we showed that planning and risk-taking were correlated with sleep timing variability, sleep quality and chronotype, but not habitual total sleep duration or its variability. While decreasing sleep duration is a general phenomenon among youths, sleep education should also promote regularity of sleep timing to optimize youth’s cognitive functioning. Funder: General Research Fund (#17612015), Research Grant Councils, HKSAR.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 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".