MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Difficulty of falling asleep and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level among Canadian older adults: a cross-sectional analysis of the Canadian Longitudinal Study for Aging baseline data.

2021· article· en· W3186620672 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jian Liu, Surim Son, Mike Giancaterino, Miya Narushima

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDemographyGeneralizability theoryLogistic regressionOdds ratioDepression (economics)Cross-sectional studyOrdered logitInternal medicineCholesterolComorbidityLinear regressionGerontologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether difficulty of falling asleep (DoFA) is associated with non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) level among Canadian older adults. METHODS: 26,954 individuals aged 45-85 years from the baseline data of the Canadian Longitudinal Study for Aging were included in this study. DoFA was categorized into five groups by answer to the question "Over the last month, how often did it take you more than 30 min to fall asleep?" Response options are "Never, < 1 time/week, 1-2 times/week, 3-5 times/week, or 6-7 times/week". Non-HDL-C, the difference of total cholesterol and HDL-C, were categorized into five categories based on these cut-offs (< 2.6 mmol/L, 2.6-3.7 mmol/L, 3.7-4.8 mmol/L, 4.8-5.7 mmol/L, and ≥ 5.7 mmol/L). Ordinal logistic regression (logit link) continuation ratio models were used to estimate the odds of higher non-HDL-C levels for DoFA status. Adjusted means of non-HDL-C by DoFA status were estimated by general linear models. All analyses were sex separately using analytic weights to ensure generalizability. RESULTS: The proportions of DoFA in five categories were 41.6%, 25.7%, 13.6%, 9.4%, 9.7% for females and 52.9%, 24.9%, 10.5%, 6.1%, 5.6% for males, respectively. After adjustment of demographical and other covariates (such as depression, comorbidity, sleeping hour, etc.) compared to those who reported never having DoFA, the ORs (95% CIs) of higher levels of non-HDL-C for those whose DoFA status in < 1 time/week, 1-2 times/week, 3-5 times/week, and 6-7 times/week were 1.12 (1.05-1.21), 1.09 (0.99-1.18), 1.20 (1.09-1.33), 1.29 (1.17-1.43) in females and 1.05 (0.98-1.13), 0.95 (0.87-1.05), 1.21 (1.08-1.37), 0.97 (0.85-1.09) in males, respectively. The adjusted means of non-HDL-C among the five DoFA status were 3.68 mmol/L, 3.73 mmol/L, 3.74 mmol/L, 3.82 mmol/L, 3.84 mmol/L for females and 3.54 mmol/L, 3.58 mmol/L, 3.51 mmol/L, 3.69 mmol/L, 3.54 mmol/L for males, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study have identified a risk association pattern between DoFA status and non-HDL-C levels in females but not in males. Further research is needed to confirm these findings.

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)0.002
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicSleep and related disorders→French-language works237,207→