Adult Female Sleep During Hypoxic Bed Rest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Hypobaric hypoxic habitats are currently being touted as a potential solution to minimise decompression procedures in preparation for extra vehicular activities during future space missions. Since astronauts will live in hypoxic environments for the duration of such missions, the present study sought to elucidate the separate and combined effects of inactivity [simulated with the experimental bed rest (BR) model] and hypoxia on sleep characteristics in women. Methods Twelve women (Age = 27 ± 3 year) took part in three 10-day interventions, in a repeated measures cross-over counterbalanced design: (1) normobaric normoxic BR (NBR), (2) normobaric hypoxic BR (HBR; simulated altitude of 4,000 m), and (3) normobaric hypoxic ambulatory (HAMB; 4,000 m) confinement, during which sleep was assessed on night 1 and night 10 with polysomnography. In addition, one baseline sleep assessment was performed. This baseline assessment, although lacking a confinement aspect, was included statistically as a fourth comparison (i.e., pseudo normobaric normoxic ambulatory; pNAMB) in the present study. Results Hypoxia decreased sleep efficiency ( p = 0.019), increased N1% sleep ( p = 0.030), decreased N3 sleep duration ( p = 0.003), and increased apnea hypopnea index ( p < 0.001). BR impaired sleep maintenance, efficiency, and architecture [e.g., N2% sleep increased ( p = 0.033)]. Specifically, for N3% sleep, the effects of partial pressure of oxygen and activity interacted. Hypoxia decreased N3% sleep both when active (pNAMB vs HAMB; p < 0.001) and inactive (NBR vs HBR; p = 0.021), however, this decrease was attenuated in the inactive state (–3.8%) compared to the active state (–10.2%). Conclusion A 10-day exposure to hypoxia and BR negatively impacted sleep on multiple levels as in macrostructure, microstructure and respiratory functioning. Interestingly, hypoxia appeared to have less adverse effects on sleep macrostructure while the participants were inactive (bed ridden) compared to when ambulatory. Data were missing to some extent (i.e., 20.8%). Therefore, multiple imputation was used, and our results should be considered as exploratory.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".