Impact of chronic sleep restriction on sleep continuity, sleep structure, and neurobehavioral performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic sleep restriction (CSR) has been associated with adverse effects including cognitive impairment and increased risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Yet, sleep restriction therapy is an essential component of most behavioral treatments for insomnia. Moreover, little is known about the impact of CSR on sleep continuity and structure in healthy people whose need for sleep is satiated. We investigated the impact of CSR on sleep continuity and structure in nine healthy participants. They had 4 nights of sleep extension, 2 nights of post-extension sleep, 21 nights of CSR (5/5.6-hour time-in-bed), and 9 nights of recovery sleep. Compared to postextension sleep, during CSR sleep duration was reduced by 95.4 ± 21.2 min per night, Slow-Wave Activity was significantly increased, and sleep was more consolidated. During recovery, sleep duration was increased by 103.3 ± 23.8 min compared to CSR, and the CSR-induced increase in Slow-Wave Activity persisted, particularly after the 5-hour exposure. Yet, we found that sustained vigilant attention was not fully recovered even after nine nights of recovery sleep. Our results suggest that CSR improves traditional metrics of sleep quality and may have a persistent impact on sleep depth, which is consistent with the reported benefits on sleep continuity and structure of sleep restriction therapy. However, these improvements in traditional metrics of sleep quality were associated with deterioration rather than improvement in neurobehavioral performance, demonstrating that sleep duration should be included in assessments of sleep quality. These results have implications for the long-term use of sleep restriction in the behavioral treatment of insomnia. Clinical Trial Registration: Impact of Chronic Circadian Disruption vs. Chronic Sleep Restriction on Metabolism (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/; #NCT02171273).
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) | 0.004 | 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".