Deconstructing athletes’ sleep: A systematic review of the influence of age, sex, athletic expertise, sport type, and season on sleep characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This systematic review aimed to describe objective sleep parameters for athletes under different conditions and address potential sleep issues in this specific population. METHODS: PubMed and Scopus were searched from inception to April 2019. Included studies measured sleep only via objective evaluation tools such as polysomnography or actigraphy. The modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for the quality assessment of the studies. RESULTS: Eighty-one studies were included, of which 56 were classified as medium quality, 5 studies as low quality, and 20 studies as high quality. A total of 1830 athletes were monitored over 18,958 nights. Average values for sleep-related parameters were calculated for all athletes according to sex, age, athletic expertise level, training season, and type of sport. Athletes slept on average 7.2 ± 1.1 h/night (mean ± SD), with 86.3% ± 6.8% sleep efficiency (SE). In all datasets, the athletes' mean total sleep time was <8 h. SE was low for young athletes (80.3% ± 8.8%). Reduced SE was attributed to high wake after sleep onset rather than sleep onset latency. During heavy training periods, sleep duration and SE were on average 36 min and 0.8% less compared to pre-season and 42 min and 3.0% less compared to in-season training periods, respectively. CONCLUSION: Athletes' sleep duration was found to be short with low SE, in comparison to the general consensus for non-athlete healthy adults. Notable sleep issues were revealed in young athletes. Sleep quality and architecture tend to change across different training periods.
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 | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".