Sleep Efficiency May Predict Depression in a Large Population-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The purpose of our study was to investigate the effect of objective sleep characteristics on the incidence of depression. Methods The participants of our study (1,595 men and 1,780 women with 63.1 ± 10.7 years) were selected from the Sleep Heart Health Study (SHHS) datasets. Depression was defined as the first occurrence between SHHS visit 1 and visit 2. Objective sleep characteristics, including sleep efficiency (SE), wake after sleep onset (WASO), sleep fragmentation index (SFI) and arousal index (ArI), were monitored by polysomnography. Multivariable logistic regression was used to explore the relationship between sleep characteristics and depression. Results A total of 248 patients with depression (7.3%) were observed between SHHS visits 1 and 2. After adjusting for covariates, SE (odds ratio [OR], 0.891; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.811–0.978; P = 0.016) and WASO (OR, 1.021; 95% CI 1.002–1.039; P = 0.026) were associated with the incidence of depression. Moreover, the relationship between SE and depression was more pronounced in men (OR, 0.820; 95% CI 0.711–0.946; P = 0.007) than in women (OR, 0.950; 95% CI 0.838–1.078; P = 0.429) in subgroup analysis (Pinteraction < 0.05). Conclusions SE and WASO may be markers for the incidence of depression. The association between SE and depression was intensified in men.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".