Sexual and gender minority sleep: A narrative review and suggestions for future research
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
This article reviews a growing body of research that examines sleep among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) populations. An extensive search of the literature was conducted using multiple medical and psychological search engine platforms. In total, this search yielded 31 reports that included sleep data collected from sexual and gender minority participants. Overall, research findings are mixed and include several publications of studies conducted in the same sample. Our review suggests that sleep health among LGBT individuals may be an unmet health need. Critically, sleep disturbances affected LGBT subgroups differently based on sex/gender and diverse sexual orientations (e.g., bisexual women). Although not directly tested, evidence from parallel LGBT health research suggests that minority stress may contribute to these observed sleep disparities and will need to be directly assessed in future studies. In sum, continued investigation of sleep disparities among sexual and gender minority communities is needed, as is the inclusion of sleep health in theoretical models of LGBT health disparities. Given the importance of sleep in overall mental and physical health, addressing sleep health may serve to promote and protect healthy functioning among LGBT individuals.
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 | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 it