MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3112891458 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igaa057.2177

Affective Vulnerability to Short Sleep Predicts 10-Year Changes in Chronic Health Conditions

2020· article· en· W3112891458 on OpenAlexaff
Nancy L. Sin, Jonathan Rush, Orfeu M. Buxton, David M. Almeida

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)Sleep (system call)PsychologyVulnerability (computing)ChecklistRisk factorClinical psychologyMedicineGerontologyDevelopmental psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We examined daily affective vulnerability to short sleep (i.e., individual differences in the extent that sleeping ≤6h predicts next-day affect) as a risk factor for developing chronic conditions 10 years later. Participants (N=1945, ages 35-85, 57% women) from the National Study of Daily Experiences reported sleep duration and affect in daily diary telephone interviews. Chronic conditions were assessed with a 39-item checklist (e.g., arthritis, hypertension, diabetes). Multilevel structural equation models revealed that individuals with heightened negative affect following short sleep had an increased number of chronic conditions after 10 years (Est.=1.20, SE=.48, p<.01). Positive affective vulnerability (i.e., greater declines in positive affect following shorter sleep vs. longer sleep) was marginally associated with 10-year chronic conditions (Est.=-.72, SE=.40, p=.07). Adding to the well-established connections between sleep duration and well-being across adulthood, these findings suggest that affective vulnerability to short sleep represents a unique risk factor for long-term health as people age.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in Aging→Same topicSleep and related disorders→French-language works237,207→