Bidirectional Links of Daily Sleep Quality and Duration With Pain and Self-rated Health in Older Adults’ Daily Lives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sleep and health perceptions, such as self-ratings of pain and health are closely linked. However, the temporal ordering of such associations is not well understood, and it remains unclear whether sleep quality and sleep duration show similar or differential associations with health perceptions. METHODS: We used ecological momentary assessment data from 123 young-old (66-69 years, 47% women) and 47 old-old adults (84-90 years, 60% women). Across 7 consecutive days, participants reported their sleep quality and sleep duration each morning and rated their momentary pain and health 6 times per day. We applied dynamic structural equation models to examine bidirectional links of morning reports of sleep quality and duration with daily levels of self-rated pain and health. RESULTS: In line with the hypotheses, results showed that when participants reported better sleep quality than what is typical for them, they reported less pain and better self-rated health on the day that followed. Longer sleep duration was not linked with subsequent pain or self-rated health. On days when people rated their health as better than usual, they reported better sleep quality but not longer sleep duration the following night. These associations were not moderated by age, gender, or chronic pain. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that in old age, sleep quality is more relevant for health perceptions than sleep duration. Associations between sleep quality and self-rated health seem to be bidirectional; daily pain was linked to prior but not subsequent sleep quality.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".