Is self-reported short sleep duration associated with obesity? A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: A possible association between self-reported short sleep duration and risk of obesity has been studied. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the association between sleep duration and obesity. METHODS: The LILACS, Medline, Central, Embase, and OpenGrey databases were searched from inception until July 2020. Two authors screened the studies independently according to the PECO strategy, as follows: participants: > 18 years old; exposure: short sleep duration; control: regular sleep; outcome: obesity). Only cohort studies were included. A total of 3286 studies were retrieved with the search strategy, but only 36 were included. Disagreements were resolved by a third author. The quality of studies was assessed with Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Form for Cohort Studies. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies were included, and 22 contributed quantitative data. Most of the studies (n = 27) assessed sleep by self-report. The meta-analysis showed a significant association between self-reported short sleep and development of obesity, and the chances of developing obesity increased when self-reported sleep duration decreased. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported short sleep was significantly associated with a higher incidence of obesity, with moderate quality of evidence. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42019130143.
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 | 0.017 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".