0364 Sex and Race Influence Objective and Self-Report Sleep and Circadian Measures in Emerging Adults at Risk for Bipolar Spectrum Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction There is a critical need to understand key factors that impact sleep and circadian rhythm function for emerging adults at risk for bipolar spectrum disorder (BSD). Sex and race are common demographic factors contributing to differences in health outcomes; however, the influence of these variables on sleep and circadian rhythm patterns for emerging adults at risk for BSD has not been characterized. Methods Multiple objective and self-report facets of sleep and circadian function, including dim light melatonin onset (DLMO), and measures derived from actigraphy and sleep diaries, were assessed in a 20-day ecological momentary assessment (EMA) study of 150 emerging adults (mean ± SD, 21.8 ± 2.1y; 58.7% female; 57.9% White, 23.4% Black, 10.3% Asian or Pacific Islander, 8.0% Other ethnicity) at-risk for BSD. Bivariate Pearson correlations (two-tailed, p <.05) were conducted between the sleep and circadian measures. ANCOVAs, controlling for BSD status, were conducted to evaluate differences on sleep and circadian characteristics by sex and race. Results Males exhibited better actigraphic sleep efficiency and later DLMO phase than females, whereas females exhibited more actigraphic discrete sleep periods. White participants exhibited more actigraphy-measured total sleep time, better sleep efficiency, and fewer sleep periods, and self-reported more total sleep time and better sleep efficiency than Black participants. Conclusion We show for the first time that sex and race are significant predictors of objective and self-reported sleep and circadian rhythm measures in a large sample of emerging adults at risk for BSD participating in an EMA study. Our findings extend the existing literature to a novel clinical population and to a naturalistic setting and inform ongoing research on sex and racial health disparities in sleep and circadian rhythms. Support This work was supported by NIH R01 MH77908 and R01 MH102310; a Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council; and a National Science Foundation Graduate Student Research Fellowship.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".