The Association of Optimism with Sleep Duration and Quality: Findings from the Coronary Artery Risk and Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optimism is associated with better health outcomes with hypothesized effects due in part to optimism’s association with restorative health processes. Limited work has examined whether optimism is associated with better quality sleep, a major restorative process. We test the hypothesis that greater optimism is associated with more favorable sleep quality and duration. Main analyses included adults aged 32–51 who participated in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study (n = 3,548) during the fifth (Year 15: 2000–2001) and sixth (Year 20: 2005–2006) follow-up visits. Optimism was assessed using the revised Life-Orientation Test. Self-report measures of sleep quality and duration were obtained twice 5 years apart. A subset of CARDIA participants (2003–2005) additionally provided actigraphic data and completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). Multivariate regression analyses were used to examine associations of optimism and sleep indicators. In cross-sectional analyses of 3548 participants, each standard deviation (SD) higher optimism score resulted in 78% higher odds of self-reporting very good sleep quality. Prospectively, a 1-SD higher optimism score was related to higher odds of reporting persistently good sleep quality across 5-years relative to those with persistently poor sleep [OR = 1.31; 95%CI:1.10,1.56]. In participant with supplementary data, each SD higher optimism score was marginally associated with 22% greater odds of favorable sleep quality [OR = 1.22; 95%CI:1.00,1.49] as measured by the PSQI, with possible mediation by depressive symptoms. Optimism was unrelated to objective actigraphic sleep data. Findings support a positive cross-sectional and prospective association between optimism and self-reported sleep behavior.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".