Temporal Associations of Daily Changes in Sleep and Depression Core Symptoms in Patients Suffering From Major Depressive Disorder: Idiographic Time-Series Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a strong link between sleep and major depression; however, the causal relationship remains unclear. In particular, it is unknown whether changes in depression core symptoms precede or follow changes in sleep, and whether a longer or shorter sleep duration is related to improvements of depression core symptoms. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate temporal associations between sleep and depression in patients suffering from major depressive disorder using an idiographic research approach. METHODS: Time-series data of daily sleep assessments (time in bed and total sleep time) and self-rated depression core symptoms for an average of 173 days per patient were analyzed in 22 patients diagnosed with recurrent major depressive disorder using a vector autoregression model. Granger causality tests were conducted to test for possible causality. Impulse response analysis and forecast error variance decomposition were performed to quantify the temporal mutual impact of sleep and depression. RESULTS: Overall, 11 positive and 5 negative associations were identified between time in bed/total sleep time and depression core symptoms. Granger analysis showed that time in bed/total sleep time caused depression core symptoms in 9 associations, whereas this temporal order was reversed for the other 7 associations. Most of the variance (10%) concerning depression core symptoms could be explained by time in bed. Changes in sleep or depressive symptoms of 1 SD had the greatest impact on the other variable in the following 2 to 4 days. CONCLUSIONS: Longer rather than shorter bedtimes were associated with more depression core symptoms. However, the temporal orders of the associations were heterogeneous.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".