Self-reported sleepiness associates with greater brain and cortical volume and lower prevalence of ischemic covert brain infarcts in a community sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: We evaluated if self-reported sleepiness was associated with neuroimaging markers of brain aging and ischemic damage in a large community-based sample. METHODS: Participants from the Framingham Heart Study Offspring cohort (n = 468, 62.5 ± 8.7 years old, 49.6%M) free of dementia, stroke, and neurological diseases, completed sleep questionnaires and polysomnography followed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), 3 years later on average. We used linear and logistic regression models to evaluate the associations between Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) scores and total brain, cortical and subcortical gray matter, and white matter hyperintensities volumes, and the presence of covert brain infarcts. RESULTS: Higher sleepiness scores were associated with larger total brain volume, greater cortical gray matter volume, and a lower prevalence of covert brain infarcts, even when adjusting for a large array of potential confounders, including demographics, sleep profiles and disorders, organic health diseases, and proxies for daytime cognitive and physical activities. Interactions indicated that more sleepiness was associated with larger cortical gray matter volume in men only and in APOE ε4 noncarriers, whereas a trend for smaller cortical gray matter volume was observed in carriers. In longitudinal analyses, those with stable excessive daytime sleepiness over time had greater total brain and cortical gray matter volumes, whereas baseline sleepiness scores were not associated with subsequent atrophy or cognitive decline. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that sleepiness is not necessarily a marker of poor brain health when not explained by diseases or sleep debt and sleep disorders. Rather, sleepiness could be a marker of preserved sleep-regulatory processes and brain health in some cases.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".