MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229722576 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsaa056.148

0150 Comparing Two Measures of Sleep Depth/ Intensity

2020· article· en· W4229722576 on OpenAlexaff
Magdy Younes, P K Schweitzer, K Griffin, J K Walsh, R Balshaw

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsGeorge & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare InnovationUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArousalDeltaSleep restrictionAudiologyPlaceboPolysomnographyIntensity (physics)Sleep StagesPsychologySleep (system call)Sleep onsetAnesthesiaMedicineCircadian rhythmElectroencephalographyInternal medicineSleep deprivationPhysicsPsychiatryInsomniaSocial psychologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction There is currently no well-validated method for evaluating objective sleep depth/intensity. Delta power is thought to reflect sleep depth based upon limited evidence. Odds-ratio-product (ORP) is a recently introduced continuous measure of sleep depth. We compared delta spectral power (delta) and ORP as measures of sleep depth/intensity during manipulations that altered sleep depth (sleep restriction with placebo or with a delta-promoting drug). We hypothesized that ORP will provide a more robust measure of sleep depth. Methods This is a secondary analysis of data from a study in which forty-one healthy subjects were sleep restricted and randomized to receive placebo or gaboxadol 15mg. Participants underwent consecutive in-laboratory sleep studies on two baseline, four sleep restriction (5 hours) and two recovery nights. The relation between delta or ORP during any given 30s epoch and sleep depth, operationally defined as the probability of arousal / awakening occurring during the next 30 seconds (arousability), was assessed. Results Mean ORP values differed significantly among the four sleep / wake stages, but delta power did not differentiate wake, N1 and N2. The relation between ORP and arousability was linear across the entire range of ORP whereas delta power detected differences in arousability only with delta values &lt 300 μV2. Correlations with arousability in individual subjects were stronger with ORP (p &lt 0.0001). Receiver operating characteristic analysis found the ability to predict imminent arousal to be significantly greater with ORP than with delta power for all experimental conditions (p &lt 0.0001). The increase in sleep depth with restriction alone was detected on the second day of restriction by ORP (p &lt 0.01) but not by delta. Conclusion As compared to delta power, ORP is more discriminating among sleep stages, more sensitive to sleep restriction, and more closely associated with arousability. These observations indicate ORP better reflects sleep depth/intensity. Support None

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.902

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207