MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2626651950 · doi:10.1111/jsr.12548

Sleep structure in blindness is influenced by circadian desynchrony

2017· article· en· W2626651950 on OpenAlexaff
Sébrina Aubin, Poul Jennum, Toré Nielsen, Ron Kupers, Maurice Ptito

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sleep Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Sleep & Circadian NetworkUniversité de Montréal
FundersNovo Nordisk Fonden
KeywordsCircadian rhythmSleep (system call)PsychologyBlindnessChronotypeAudiologyMedicineNeuroscienceOptometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined the structure, duration and quality of sleep, including non-rapid eye movement sleep and rapid eye movement sleep, in 11 blind individuals without conscious light perception and 11 age- and sex-matched sighted controls. Because blindness is associated with a greater incidence of free-running circadian rhythms, we controlled for circadian phase by a measure of melatonin onset timing. When circadian rhythm was entrained and melatonin onset occurred at normal times, sleep structure did not differ between blind and sighted individuals. On the other hand, an abnormal timing of the circadian phase, including delayed, shifted and unclassifiable melatonin onsets, led to larger rapid eye movement sleep latencies and increased wake times. No differences were observed for stages of non-rapid eye movement sleep, either between congenital and late blind and sighted individuals, or across the different circadian phases. Moreover, abnormal circadian phases were more common in the blind (n = 5) than the sighted (n = 2) sample. Our findings suggest that the sleep structure of blind individuals depends on entrainment of circadian phase, rather than on the absence of vision.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sleep ResearchSame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207