Testing the contiguity of the sleep and fatigue relationship: a daily diary study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: There is mixed evidence for the relationship between poor sleep and daytime fatigue, and some have suggested that fatigue is simply caused by lack of sleep. Although retrospective measures of insomnia and fatigue tend to correlate, other studies fail to demonstrate a link between objectively disturbed sleep and fatigue. The current study prospectively explored the relationship between sleep and fatigue among those with and without insomnia disorder. METHODS: Participants meeting Research Diagnostic Criteria for insomnia disorder (n = 33) or normal sleepers (n = 32) completed the Consensus Sleep Diary (CSD) and daily fatigue ratings for 2 weeks. Baseline questionnaires evaluated cognitive factors including unhelpful beliefs about sleep and rumination about fatigue. Hierarchical linear modeling tested the within- and between-participant relationships between sleep quality, total sleep time, and daily fatigue ratings. Mediation analyses tested if cognitive factors mediated the relationship between insomnia and fatigue. RESULTS: Self-reported nightly sleep quality significantly predicted subsequent daily fatigue ratings. Total sleep time was a significant predictor of fatigue within, but not between, participants. Unhelpful sleep beliefs and rumination about fatigue mediated the relationship between insomnia and fatigue reporting. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that perception of sleep plays an important role in predicting reports of daytime fatigue. These findings could be used in treatment to help shift the focus away from total sleep times, and instead, focus on challenging maladaptive sleep-related cognitions to change fatigue perception.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".