Sleep timing, sleep consistency, and health in adults: a systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this systematic review was to examine the associations between sleep timing (e.g., bedtime/wake-up time, midpoint of sleep), sleep consistency/regularity (e.g., intra-individual variability in sleep duration, social jetlag, catch-up sleep), and health outcomes in adults aged 18 years and older. Four electronic databases were searched in December 2018 for articles published in the previous 10 years. Fourteen health outcomes were examined. A total of 41 articles, including 92 340 unique participants from 14 countries, met inclusion criteria. Sleep was assessed objectively in 37% of studies and subjectively in 63% of studies. Findings suggest that later sleep timing and greater sleep variability were generally associated with adverse health outcomes. However, because most studies reported linear associations, it was not possible to identify thresholds for “late sleep timing” or “large sleep variability”. In addition, social jetlag was associated with adverse health outcomes, while weekend catch-up sleep was associated with better health outcomes. The quality of evidence ranged from “very low” to “moderate” across study designs and health outcomes using GRADE. In conclusion, the available evidence supports that earlier sleep timing and regularity in sleep patterns with consistent bedtimes and wake-up times are favourably associated with health. (PROSPERO registration no.: CRD42019119534.) Novelty This is the first systematic review to examine the influence of sleep timing and sleep consistency on health outcomes. Later sleep timing and greater variability in sleep are both associated with adverse health outcomes in adults. Regularity in sleep patterns with consistent bedtimes and wake-up times should be encouraged.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it