1018 Sleep and Fatigue: Examining the Impact on Cognitive Function in Older Adults Living with HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Poor sleep affects 75% of older adults living with HIV, negatively impacting health. The purpose of this study was to examine the associations between sleep, fatigue and cognitive function in older adults living with HIV with well-controlled HIV virus. Methods Forty-three adults aged 50 years and older living with HIV were recruited for this study. Participants provided demographic and health information. Participants wore actigraph watches continuously for one week, while completing a daily sleep diary, fatigue instrument, and Epworth Sleepiness Scale. After one week participants returned and completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and performed cognitive testing including the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Results Fluid cognition (measured with the Cognition Battery) positively correlated with hours of sleep measured via actigraph the night immediately prior to testing (p = .008), but not by average hours slept over the week. Average daily fatigue and daytime sleepiness were also correlated with fluid cognition (p = .012, p = .032 respectively). Similar results were found when cognition was measured using the MoCA, with sleep (p = .001), average fatigue (p = .017), and daytime sleepiness (p = .028) all correlated with cognition. When sleep was measured subjectively, Pearson correlation indicated that there was a statistically significant negative relationship of moderate strength between global sleep and cognitive function (r = -.47, p = .015). Conclusion The study provides evidence that poor sleep, measured objectively or subjectively, is associated with cognitive impairment. Despite we-controlled HIV virus, 86% of study participants had global sleep scores indicating poor sleep. Sleep measured objectively resulted in less nightly sleep than by subjective measure, 4.5 vs 6.07 average hours per night. Studying effective interventions to improve sleep should be a next step as a way of improving cognitive function for this population. Support This study was supported through a grant funded by Sigma Theta Tau International and the National Gerontological Nurses Association.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".