Circadian rhythms and psychiatric profiles in young adults with unipolar depressive disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abnormalities in circadian rhythms have been reported in people with mood disorders, but these abnormalities are marked by considerable inter-individual variability. This study aimed to identify pathophysiological subgroups on the basis of circadian markers and evaluate how these subgroups relate to psychiatric profiles. Thirty-five young adults (18-31 years old) receiving clinical care for unipolar depressive disorders and 15 healthy controls took part to this study. The Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and the Young Mania rating scale were used to evaluate the severity of mood symptoms in participants with depressive disorders. All participant underwent ambulatory sleep monitoring with actigraphy for about 12 days before attending a laboratory-based chronobiological assessment which included repeated salivary samples to determine dim light melatonin onset (DLMO) and continuous core body temperature (CBT) monitoring using an ingestible temperature sensor. Cluster analyses were conducted across all participants to identify subgroups with consistent circadian timing profiles based on DLMO and the nocturnal minima of CBT. Two clusters were identified: 'delayed' and 'conventional timing' circadian phase. Descriptive analyses showed that the delayed cluster was characterised by abnormal time relationships between circadian phase markers and the sleep-wake cycle. Importantly, individuals from the delayed cluster had worse depression severity (t(28) = -2.7, p = 0.011) and hypomanic symptoms (Z = -2.2, p = 0.041) than their peers with conventional circadian timing. These findings suggest that delayed and disorganised circadian rhythms may be linked to worse psychiatric profiles in young people with depressive disorders.
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".