Comparing two measures of sleep depth/intensity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare delta spectral power (delta) and odds ratio product (ORP) as measures of sleep depth during sleep restriction with placebo or a drug that increases delta. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of data from a study of 41 healthy participants randomized to receive placebo or gaboxadol 15 mg during sleep restriction. Participants underwent in-laboratory sleep studies on two baseline, four sleep restriction (5-h), and two recovery nights. Relation between delta or ORP and sleep depth was operationally defined as the degree of association of each metric to the probability of arousal or awakening occurring during the next 30 s (arousability). RESULTS: ORP values in wake, N1, N2, N3, and REM were significantly different. Delta differed between both N2 and N3 and other sleep stages but not between wake and N1 or N1 and REM. Epoch-by-epoch and individual correlations between ORP and delta power were modest or insignificant. The relation between ORP and arousability was linear across the entire ORP range. Delta also changed with arousability but only when delta values were less than 300 μV2. Receiver-operating-characteristic analysis found the ability to predict imminent arousal to be significantly greater with ORP than with log delta power for all experimental conditions. Changes in ORP, but not log delta, across the night correlated with next-day physiologic sleep tendency. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to delta power, ORP is more discriminating among sleep stages, more sensitive to sleep restriction, and more closely associated with arousability. This evidence supports ORP as a measure of sleep depth/intensity.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".