Associations of Sleep Characteristics With Cognitive Function and Decline Among Older Adults
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
Sleep laboratory studies find that restricted sleep duration leads to worse short-term cognition, especially memory. Observational studies find associations between self-reported sleep duration or quality and cognitive function. However self-reported sleep characteristics might not be highly accurate, and misreporting could relate to cognition. In the Sleep Study of the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project (NSHAP), a nationally representative cohort of older US adults (2010-2015), we examined whether self-reported and actigraph-measured sleep are associated with cross-sectional cognitive function and 5-year cognitive decline. Cognition was measured with the survey adaptation of the multidimensional Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-SA). At baseline (n = 759), average MoCA-SA score was 14.1 (standard deviation, 3.6) points of a possible 20. In cross-sectional models, actigraphic sleep-disruption measures (wake after sleep onset, fragmentation, percentage sleep, and wake bouts) were associated with worse cognition. Sleep disruption measures were standardized, and estimates of association were similar (range, -0.37 to -0.59 MoCA-SA point per standard deviation of disruption). Actigraphic sleep-disruption measures were also associated with odds of 5-year cognitive decline (4 or more points), with wake after sleep onset having the strongest association (odds ratio = 1.43, 95% confidence interval: 1.04, 1.98). Longitudinal associations were generally stronger for men than for women. Self-reported sleep showed little association with cognitive function.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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