A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over pilot study to investigate the efficacy of Rest-ZZZ formula in healthy participants with occasional sleeplessness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of Rest-ZZZ, a natural sleep supplement, in healthy adults without a diagnosed sleep disorder. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study consisted of three 7-day supplementation periods with either Rest-ZZZ, Diphenhydramine (DPH), or Placebo, with a 7-day washout. Twenty-seven participants were randomized to one of three intervention sequences and the Healthy People Sleep Quality Index (HPSQI), Quality of Life (QoL), and Profile of Mood States (POMS) questionnaires were assessed at the beginning and end of each supplementation period. Rest-ZZZ and Placebo showed improvements in sleep-related QoL (p ≤ 0.044) and total mood disturbance (TMD) (p = ≤ 0.028). Fatigue–Inertia was reduced by all study products (p ≤ 0.031). DPH did not result in any significant improvements on sleep quality parameters. A subgroup analysis of participants ≤ 45 years found enhanced efficacy of Rest-ZZZ and improvement in sleep-related QoL vs. Placebo (p = 0.007), as well as improvements in sleep duration (p = 0.007), sleep debt (p = 0.011), and sleep-related QoL (p = 0.033). DPH supplementation resulted in significant improvement in only sleep debt (p = 0.038). Rest-ZZZ had a safe hematology and chemistry profile. Rest-ZZZ resulted in restful sleep that generated corresponding improvements in sleep-related QoL and overall mood. Rest-ZZZ is an efficacious sleep supplement with a favorable safety profile, particularly in those aged 25–45 years.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".