The sleep homeostatic response to sleep deprivation in humans is heritable
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Following sleep deprivation, increases in delta power have historically been used to index increases in sleep pressure. Research in mice has demonstrated that the homeostatic delta power response to sleep deprivation is heritable. Whether this is true in humans is unknown. In the present study, we used delta power and ORP, a novel measure of sleep depth, to investigate the effects of acute sleep deprivation on sleep depth and to assess the heritability of sleep homeostasis in humans. METHODS: ORP and delta power were examined during baseline and recovery sleep following 38 h of sleep deprivation in 57 monozygotic and 38 dizygotic same-sex twin pairs. Two complementary methods were used to estimate the trait heritability of sleep homeostasis. RESULTS: During recovery sleep, ORP was lower and delta power was higher than at baseline, indicating deeper sleep. However, at the end of the recovery night, delta power reached baseline levels but ORP demonstrated incomplete recovery. Both ORP and delta power showed a broad sense heritability of sleep homeostasis following sleep deprivation. The classical approach demonstrated an h2 estimate of 0.43 for ORP and 0.73 for delta power. Mixed-effect multilevel models showed that the proportion of variance attributable to additive genetic transmission was 0.499 (95% CI = 0.316-0.682; p < .0001) for ORP and 0.565 (95% CI = 0.403-0.726; p < .0001 for delta power. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that the homeostatic response to sleep deprivation is a heritable trait in humans and confirm ORP as a robust measure of sleep depth.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".