Sleep Quality and Chronotype Differences between Elite Athletes and Non-Athlete Controls
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has found that elite athletes have insufficient sleep, yet the specific kinds of sleep disturbances occurring as compared to a control group are limited. Here we compare the subjective sleep quality and chronotype of elite athletes to a control group of non-athlete good sleepers. Sixty-three winter Canadian National Team athletes (mean age 26.0 ± 0.0; 32% females) completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and the Athlete Morningness Eveningness Scale. They were compared to 83 healthy, non-athlete, good-sleeper controls (aged 27.3 ± 3.7; 51% females) who completed the PSQI and the Composite Scale of Morningness. The elite athletes reported poorer sleep quality (PSQI global score 5.0 ± 2.6) relative to the controls (PSQI global score 2.6 ± 1.3), despite there being no group difference in self-reported sleep duration (athletes 8.1 ± 1.0 h; controls 8.0 ± 0.7 h). Further, athletes' chronotype distribution showed a greater skew toward morningness, despite there being no group differences in self-reported usual bedtime and wake time. These results suggest that a misalignment of sleep times with circadian preference could contribute to poorer sleep quality in elite athletes.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it