Physical inactivity amplifies the negative association between sleep quality and depressive symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poor sleep quality and physical inactivity are known risk factors for depressive symptoms. Yet, whether these factors differently contribute to depressive symptoms and whether they interact with one another remains unclear. Here, we examined how sleep quality and physical activity influence depressive symptoms in 79,274 adults 50 years of age or older (52.4% women) from the Survey of Health, Aging and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) study. Sleep quality (poor vs. good), physical activity (inactive vs. active), and depressive symptoms (0 to 12 score) were repeatedly collected (7 waves of data collection) between 2004 and 2017. Results showed that sleep quality and physical activity were associated with depressive symptoms. Specifically, participants with poorer sleep quality reported more depressive symptoms than participants with better sleep quality (b = 1.85, 95% CI = 1.83-1.86, p < .001). Likewise, compared to physically active participants, physically inactive participants reported more depressive symptoms (b = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.42-0.45, p < .001). Moreover, sleep quality and physical activity showed an interactive association with depressive symptoms (b = 0.17, 95% CI = 0.13-0.20, p < .001). The negative association between poor sleep quality and higher depressive symptoms was stronger in physically inactive than active participants. These findings suggest that, in adults 50 years of age or older, both poor sleep quality and physical inactivity are related to an increase in depressive symptoms. Moreover, the detrimental association between poor sleep quality and depressive symptoms is amplified in physically inactive individuals.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".