MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782605093 · doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqx030

Sleep extension is a feasible lifestyle intervention in free-living adults who are habitually short sleepers: a potential strategy for decreasing intake of free sugars? A randomized controlled pilot study

2018· article· en· W2782605093 on OpenAlexaff
H.K. Al Khatib, Wendy L. Hall, Alice Creedon, E. Ooi, T. Masri, Laura McGowan, Scott Harding, Julia Darzi, Gerda K. Pot

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Clinical Nutrition · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNational Institutes of HealthKing's College LondonBritish Nutrition Foundation
KeywordsSleep hygieneActigraphyMedicineSleep (system call)Randomized controlled trialPhysical therapyObesityInternal medicineInsomniaCircadian rhythmSleep quality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Evidence suggests that short sleep duration may be a newly identified modifiable risk factor for obesity, yet there is a paucity of studies to investigate this. Objective: We assessed the feasibility of a personalized sleep extension protocol in adults aged 18-64 y who are habitually short sleepers (5 to <7 h), with sleep primarily measured by wrist actigraphy. In addition, we collected pilot data to assess the effects of extended sleep on dietary intake and quality measured by 7-d food diaries, resting and total energy expenditure, physical activity, and markers of cardiometabolic health. Design: Forty-two normal-weight healthy participants who were habitually short sleepers completed this free-living, 4-wk, parallel-design randomized controlled trial. The sleep extension group (n = 21) received a behavioral consultation session targeting sleep hygiene. The control group (n = 21) maintained habitual short sleep. Results: Rates of participation, attrition, and compliance were 100%, 6.5%, and 85.7%, respectively. The sleep extension group significantly increased time in bed [0:55 hours:minutes (h:mm); 95% CI: 0:37, 1:12 h:mm], sleep period (0:47 h:mm; 95% CI: 0:29, 1:05 h:mm), and sleep duration (0:21 h:mm; 95% CI: 0:06, 0:36 h:mm) compared with the control group. Sleep extension led to reduced intake of free sugars (-9.6 g; 95% CI: -16.0, -3.1 g) compared with control (0.7 g; 95% CI: -5.7, 7.2 g) (P = 0.042). A sensitivity analysis in plausible reporters showed that the sleep extension group reduced intakes of fat (percentage), carbohydrates (grams), and free sugars (grams) in comparison to the control group. There were no significant differences between groups in markers of energy balance or cardiometabolic health. Conclusions: We showed the feasibility of extending sleep in adult short sleepers. Sleep extension led to reduced free sugar intakes and may be a viable strategy to facilitate limiting excessive consumption of free sugars in an obesity-promoting environment. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02787577.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations128
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Clinical NutritionSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207