MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2938936262 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsz067.313

0314 Changes in Sleep Depth following Sleep Deprivation Assessed by Three Methods

2019· article· en· W2938936262 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Goldschmied, Samuel T. Kuna, Greg Maislin, Allan I Pack, Magdy Younes

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and Work-Related Fatigue
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSleep (system call)Sleep deprivationMedicinePsychologyInternal medicineCircadian rhythmComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following sleep deprivation, sleep is presumed to be deeper than during baseline sleep due to greater sleep pressure. EEG delta power, a marker of sleep pressure is higher during sleep following sleep deprivation. Delta power also returns to baseline levels at the end of the recovery night, suggesting that full recovery occurs in one night. The present study compared Initial and Terminal values of three sleep depth metrics: a) delta power, b) odds-ratio-product (ORP; 0=deep sleep, 2.5=full wakefulness), and c) arousal/awakening index (AWI), in order to better characterize recovery from sleep deprivation. 40 healthy subjects (35.3±5.3 years, 25 females) underwent two polysomnograms separated by 36 hours of sleep deprivation. Delta power, ORP, and AWI were measured in the first (Initial) and last (Terminal) 1.5 hours of NREM sleep in each study. Average values of the three metrics were also calculated for stages N1, N2 and N3. Initial delta power was higher during recovery than during baseline sleep (284±157 vs. 181±89 μV2; p<0.00001). The difference in Terminal delta power (77±34 vs. 62±35 μV2; p<0.02) was a small fraction (≈15%) of the initial difference, suggesting nearly complete recovery. Initial ORP was lower during recovery than during baseline (0.26±0.11 vs. 0.35±0.11; p< p<0.00001) but the difference in Terminal ORP (0.39±0.19 vs. 0.45±0.10; p<0.00002), was ≈67% of the initial difference indicating only modest recovery. Initial AWI was lower in recovery (13.8±7.1 vs. 20.2±10.3 hr-1; p<0.00005), and, like ORP, the difference in Terminal AWI (24.1±10.7 vs. 27.5±9.2 hr-1; p<0.03) indicated modest recovery (≈50% of initial difference) Terminal delta values (77±34) were lower than in stage N1 (124±89μV2) suggesting light terminal sleep, whereas Terminal ORP and Terminal AWI were both intermediate between levels found in stages N2 and N3, suggesting deeper terminal sleep than inferred by delta power. ORP and AWI results indicate that sleep loss accrued during deprivation is only partially recovered during one recovery night. Delta power showed a different pattern, suggesting that delta may not be an adequate measure of sleep depth. NIH1P01-1HL094307, NIHP50HL060287, NIHT32HL00771324

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.424
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicSleep and Work-Related FatigueFrench-language works237,207