Associations between age‐related macular degeneration and sleep dysfunction: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Age-related macular degeneration, a prevalent degenerative retinal disease, is associated with non-visual and psychosocial impairments that may affect sleep. In this systematic review, we evaluated associations between age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and sleep, highlighted knowledge gaps and provided evidence-based recommendations to clinicians to enable holistic management of AMD patients. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central registries for papers published before May 2022. Non-English, qualitative studies and grey literature were excluded. Studies evaluating the association between AMD and sleep (including sleep disorders like insomnia and sleep apnea), and vice versa, were included. The quality of shortlisted studies was evaluated using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Six (two case-control studies, three longitudinal cohort studies and one cross-sectional study) of 551 studies were included in this review. Four studies found that AMD was associated with increased rates of sleep apnea and poorer reported sleep quality, while five studies showed that patients with sleep apnea or insomnia were at higher risk of developing AMD. Associations between self-reported sleep quantity and AMD were conflicting. No study evaluated the relationship between AMD and sleep using objective sleep assessment tools. CONCLUSION: Only a limited number of studies investigated associations between AMD and sleep. These studies suggest a bidirectional relationship between AMD and sleep dysfunction yet disagree on the relationship between sleep quantity and the likelihood of AMD. Additional studies, using objective characterisation of sleep in patients with AMD are required to confirm these findings.
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 | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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 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".