Cardiovascular autonomic dysfunction in insomnia patients with objective short sleep duration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Two phenotypes have been proposed: insomnia with objective near‐normal sleep duration, related to increased psychological symptoms, and insomnia with objective short sleep duration, associated with cardiometabolic morbidity. Reduced heart rate variability has also been implicated in the pathophysiology of cardiometabolic disease; however, there are little data on whether cardiovascular function differs between patients with objective short sleep duration and near‐normal sleep duration. Participants (Mage = 49.9 ± 11.3 years; 62.8% female) were 180 adults with chronic insomnia (Mduration = 15.7 ± 13.6). Objective sleep duration was based on total sleep time averaged across two consecutive nights of polysomnography and subjective sleep duration was based on 2‐week sleep diaries. The sample was divided into two groups, with sleep duration shorter (polysomnography‐total sleep time: n = 46; sleep diary: n = 95) or equal/longer (polysomnography‐total sleep time: n = 134; sleep diary: n = 85) than 6 hr. Electrocardiogram data derived from polysomnography were used to obtain heart rate and heart rate variability during stage 2 (N2) and rapid eye movement sleep. Heart rate variability measures included absolute and normalized high‐frequency component, an index of parasympathetic activation, and the ratio of low‐ to high‐frequency (LF/HF ratio), an index of sympathovagal balance. After controlling for covariates (e.g., co‐morbidity), patients with objective short sleep duration had reduced high‐frequency (p < .05) and elevated low‐frequency/high‐frequency ratio (p = .036) and heart rate (p = .051) compared with patients with near‐normal sleep duration. No differences were observed between phenotypes when subjective sleep duration was used. Insomnia patients with objective short sleep duration showed significantly dampened parasympathetic activation and increased sympathovagal imbalance relative to their counterparts with near‐normal sleep duration. These findings highlight the importance of treating insomnia, as treatment may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".