Home versus laboratory assessments of melatonin production and melatonin onset in young adults complaining of a delayed sleep schedule
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent evidence points toward an association between higher non-visual sensitivity to light and a later circadian phase in young adults complaining of a delayed sleep schedule. Light exposure in the evening may therefore induce a larger suppression of melatonin production in these individuals, which might: (a) bias home estimates of melatonin onset; and (b) decrease sleep propensity at bedtime. In this study, we compared home and laboratory melatonin onsets and production in sleep-delayed and control participants, using saliva samples collected in the 3 hr preceding habitual bedtime. The mean light intensity measured during saliva sampling at home was ~10 lux in both groups. Melatonin suppression at home was significant, averaging 31% and 24% in sleep-delayed and control individuals, respectively. Group difference in melatonin suppression was not significant. Estimates of melatonin onset were on average 27 min later at home than in laboratory conditions, with no group difference. Looking specifically at sleep-delayed participants, there was no correlation between non-visual sensitivity to light and home-laboratory differences in melatonin onsets. However, higher light sensitivity was associated with greater melatonin suppression in the hour before habitual bedtime. Greater melatonin suppression before bedtime was also associated with a later circadian phase. These results indicate that the validity of home estimates of melatonin onset is similar in sleep-delayed and in control individuals. Results also suggest that increased non-visual sensitivity to light could impact melatonin secretion in sleep-delayed individuals and contribute to a late bedtime by delaying circadian phase and decreasing sleep propensity.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".