Sleep in a comparative context: Investigating how human sleep differs from sleep in other primates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Primates vary in their sleep durations and, remarkably, humans sleep the least per 24-hr period of the 30 primates that have been studied. Using phylogenetic methods that quantitatively situate human phenotypes within a broader primate comparative context, we investigated the evolution of human sleep architecture, focusing on: total sleep duration, rapid eye movement (REM) sleep duration, non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep duration, and proportion of sleep in REM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used two different Bayesian methods: phylogenetic prediction based on phylogenetic generalized least squares and a multistate Onrstein-Uhlenbeck (OU) evolutionary model of random drift and stabilizing selection. RESULTS: Phylogenetic prediction confirmed that humans sleep less than predicted for a primate of our body mass, predation risk, brain size, foraging needs, sexual selection, and diet. These analyses further revealed that humans pack an unexpectedly higher proportion of REM sleep within a shorter overall sleep duration, and do so by reducing NREM sleep (rather than increasing REM). The OU model generally confirmed these findings, with shifts along the human lineage inferred for TST, NREM, and proportion of REM, but not for REM. DISCUSSION: We propose that the risks and opportunity costs of sleep are responsible for shorter sleep durations in humans, with risks arising from terrestrial sleep involving threats from predators and conspecifics, and opportunity costs because time spent sleeping could be used for learning, creating material objects, and socializing.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".