Predictors of Excessive Daytime Sleepiness in Medical Students: A Meta-Regression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) is highly prevalent among medical students and can have serious negative outcomes for both students and their patients. Little is known about the magnitude and predictors of EDS among medical college students. A meta-regression analysis was conducted to achieve these two targets. A systematic search was performed for English-language studies that reported the prevalence of EDS among medical students using the Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS), age, sex, sleep duration and sleep quality as predictive variables. A total of nine observational studies (K = 9, N = 2587) were included in the analyses. Meta-regression analyses were performed using mean age (years), sex (proportion of male subjects), sleep duration (hours/night) and sleep quality index score (continuous scale) as moderators for EDS—with the prevalence of EDS as an outcome variable. An interaction term of sleep duration X sleep quality was created to assess if these two variables simultaneously influenced the outcome variable. Utilizing the ESS, the pooled prevalence of EDS among medical students was 34.6% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 18.3–50.9%). Meta-regression models of age, sex, sleep duration and sleep quality alone revealed poor predictive capabilities. Meta-regression models of sleep duration–sleep quality interaction revealed results with high statistical significance. The findings from this review contribute supporting evidence for the relationship between sleep duration and sleep quality scores (i.e., sleep duration X sleep quality score) in predicting EDS in medical students.
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 | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.066 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".