Impairments in glycaemic control do not increase linearly with repeated nights of sleep restriction in healthy adults: a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence suggests reduced glycaemic control following sleep restriction in healthy individuals. However, it remains unknown if impairments in glycaemic control increase with each additional night of sleep restriction in a linear manner. This randomised crossover study aimed to determine if the impairment in glycaemic control increases with each additional night of sleep restriction. Ten healthy individuals underwent 4 nights of control sleep (8 hours in bed) and 4 nights of sleep restriction (4 hours in bed) in a sleep laboratory. An oral glucose tolerance test was conducted each morning. Serum glucose and insulin were measured. Glucose and insulin area under the curve were higher overall in the sleep restriction trial compared with control (p < 0.001 and p = 0.033); however, no effect of day (p = 0.620 and p = 0.863) or interaction effect (p = 0.152 and p = 0.285) were observed. This supports previous literature showing a detrimental impact of sleep restriction on glucose regulation. The present findings, however, suggest the impairment in glycaemic control does not increase in a linear manner with an increasing number of nights of sleep restriction. This may have implications for the design of future studies examining sleep restriction and glycaemic control. Novelty: Four nights of sleep restriction impaired glycaemic control in healthy individuals, but did not do so in a linear manner. No effect of number of nights of restriction was found for glucose or insulin, which may have implications for future studies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".