Physiological correlates of the Epworth Sleepiness Scale reveal different dimensions of daytime sleepiness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Epworth Sleepiness Scale is commonly used to examine self-reported daytime sleepiness in clinical populations; the physiologic correlates of this scale, however, are not well understood. Furthermore, how well this scale correlates with parallel objective and self-reported concepts of daytime sleepiness is not well described. As such, we used machine learning algorithms to examine the association between Epworth Sleepiness Scale scores and 55 sleep and medical variables in the Sleep Heart Health Study (N = 2105). Secondary analyses examined data stratified by age and gender and the relationship between the Epworth and other measures of daytime sleepiness. Analyses of the main data set resulted in low explained variance (7.15%–10.0%), with self-reported frequency of not getting enough sleep as most important predictor (10.3%–13.9% of the model variance). Stratification by neither age nor gender significantly improved explained variance. Cross-correlational analysis revealed low correlation of other daytime sleepiness measures to Epworth scores. We find that Epworth scores are not well explained by habitual or polysomnographic sleep values, or other biomedical characteristics. These analyses indicate that there are different, potentially orthogonal dimensions of the concept of “daytime sleepiness” that may be driven by different aspects of sleep physiology. As the physiologic correlates of the Epworth Sleepiness Scale remain to be elucidated, interpretation of the clinical meaning of these scores should be done with caution.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".