Sleep, health, and well-being in elite athletes from different sports, before, during, and after international competition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Limited research has been conducted on sleep problems in elite athletes at international competition, and how this relates to their general health and well-being. Methods: Sixty-five elite international athletes (37 males, 28 females, 21.8 ± 2.1 years) from different sports completed validated sleep (Athlete Sleep Screening Questionnaire), health (Subjective Health Complaints Inventory) and well-being (Sports Profile of Mood States) questionnaires; 1 month pre-competition, at the end of international competition, and 1 month post-competition. Results: Twenty-three percent of the elite athletes were identified as having a moderate or severe clinically significant sleep problem during competition, with 82% reporting less than 8 h of sleep per night. Athletes with a moderate or severe clinically significant sleep problem during competition had significantly greater general health complaints (p = 0.002), mood disturbance (p = 0.001) and poorer sleep hygiene (p = 0.002). Swimmers had more sleep difficulty pre and during competition compared to athletics and soccer (p = 0.009). Conclusion: Sleep disturbance during international competition is common and associated with poorer health and lower mood. Swimmers may be more at risk of sleep difficulty pre and during competition compared to those competing in athletics and soccer. Sleep services may be required to support elite athletes at international competition.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".