Exploring the Impact of Natural Light Exposure on Sleep of Healthy Older Adults: A Field Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies among people with dementia demonstrated that the sleep quality and rhythm improves significantly when people are exposed to ambient bright light. Since almost half of the healthy older people also indicate to suffer from chronic sleep disorders, the question arises whether ambient bright light can be beneficial to healthy older people. Particularly the effect on sleep/wake rhythm in relation to the exposure to natural light is the focus. It was hypothesised that the sleep quality would be worse in winter due to a lower daylight dose than in summer due to the lower illuminance and exposure duration. A field study was conducted to examine the relationship between daylight exposure and sleep quality in 14 healthy older adults living independently in their own dwellings in the Netherlands. All participants were asked to take part of the study both during the summer period as well as during the winter period. Therefore, they had to wear an actigraph for five consecutive days which measured sleep, activity and light exposure. Results confirmed that people were significantly longer exposed to high illumination levels (>1000 lx) in summer than in winter. Sleep quality measures, however, did not differ significantly between summer and winter. A significant, positive correlation was found between exposure duration to high illuminance from daylight during the day and the sleep efficiency the following night in summer, implying that being exposed to high illuminance for a longer time period has a positive effect on sleep efficiency for the individual data. There was also a tendency of less frequent napping in case of longer exposure duration to light for both seasons. Sleep quality does not differ between summer and winter but is related to the duration of the exposure to bright light the day prior to the night.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".