Increased spindle density correlates with sleep continuity improvements following an eight‐week course of a melatonin agonist in people with depression: A proof‐of‐concept study with agomelatine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sleep fragmentation and reductions in sleep spindles have been observed in individuals with depression. Sleep spindles are known to play a protective role for sleep, and there are indications that melatonin agents can enhance spindles in healthy people. Whether agomelatine, a melatonin agonist indicated for the treatment of depression, may increase spindle density sufficiently to impact sleep continuity in people with depression remains unknown. This proof-of-concept study investigated changes in spindles following agomelatine intake in young adults with depression and assessed how they may relate to potential changes in sleep continuity and depressive symptoms. This study was based on an open-label design. Fifteen participants between 17 and 28 years of age (mean = 22.2; standard deviation [SD] = 3.4) with a diagnosis of a depressive disorder underwent polysomnography before and after an intervention including a 1 hr psychoeducation session centered on sleep and circadian rhythms, and an 8-week course of agomelatine (25-50 mg) with a guided sleep phase advance. Fast spindle density significantly increased from pre- to post-intervention. This increase in spindle density significantly correlated with a reduction in wake after sleep onset, and a similar trend was found with increased sleep efficiency. There was no significant correlation between spindle parameters and depressive symptoms. These findings suggest that agomelatine may contribute to enhanced sleep consolidation, possibly in part through the modulation of spindle production. This should be confirmed by larger randomized control trials.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".