285 Pilot field study of Ambulatory Sleep-Staging in Shift-Working Air Traffic Controllers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction The simplicity of wrist actigraphy for sleep-wake monitoring in the field contributes to its ubiquity in shift-work research. However, devices based solely on recording activity levels are generally not suitable to quantify sleep architecture. This is a limitation as quantifying changes in sleep stages caused by circadian misalignment is important to better assess the consequences of sleep-wake disruption in shift-working populations. This pilot study was conducted to evaluate whether sleep stages vary with respect to different shift types. Methods Six male air traffic controllers aged 48.5±8.4 years (mean±SD) completed the protocol which entailed two ~9-day periods, each with up to 6 workdays. Schedules comprised 1 or 2 early night shifts (19:30–03:30h), followed by an evening shift (15:00–23:00h), day shift (09:00–17:00h), morning shift (06:30–14:30h), and 1 or 2 full night shifts (23:00–7:00h). A portable sleep-staging device (Somno-Art, Paris, France) that monitored activity levels and heart rate was worn on the non-dominant forearm during bedtime and produced estimates of REM and NREM sleep stages with a proprietary algorithm. Total sleep time (TST) and sleep stages were assessed per shift type with mixed-effects models. Results Final analyses were based on 70 sleep periods preceding workdays, standardized to 24 h to account for the different intervals between consecutive shifts. Analyses revealed significant effects of shift type for TST (p=.016), stages N1 (p=.010) and N2 (p=.043), but none for N3 (p=.055) or REM (p=.117) sleep. TST and stage N1 sleep prior to night shifts was shorter than for day, evening, or early night shifts (all p<.05). Participants obtained less stage N2 sleep prior to night shifts than days shifts (p=.049). Conclusion This pilot study suggests variations in TST across shifts were predominantly due to differences in light sleep stages, whereas no significant differences in N3 and REM sleep were observed. Thus, while TST was reduced for night shifts, participants obtained similar durations of the most recuperative stages. These findings highlight the importance of refined monitoring of sleep in field research involving shift-work. Support (if any) Project funded by NAV Canada. Devices lent by the Somno-Art company. A.K. received a postdoctoral fellowship from the Fonds de Recherche en Santé du Québec (FRQS).
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".