Sedentary behaviour and sleep quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-quality sleep is an important factor in sustaining health and improving well-being. Previous evidence has demonstrated the positive associations between increased physical activity and reduced sedentary behaviour (SB) with sleep quality. The substitutional relationships between SB, light-intensity physical activity (LPA), and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) need to be considered when examining how a particular behaviour may impact sleep quality. No studies, to our knowledge, have explored these substitutional relationships in middle-aged adulthood. Using an isotemporal substitution approach, this study examined the associations of replacing sedentary time with physical activity on sleep quality measures in a sample of middle-aged adults in Japan. Data from 683 adults aged 40-64 living in Japan were used. The average daily time spent in SB, LPA, and MVPA was objectively assessed by accelerometers. Two self-reported sleep quality measures were obtained using questionnaires, including rest by sleep and sleep quality. Multivariable linear regression models were used to assess the associations of SB, LPA, and MVPA with the sleep quality measures stratified by gender. We found that each 60 min unit of SB or LPA replaced with MVPA was favourably associated with rest by sleep among women (β = 0.16, 95% CI 0.07, 0.28, p < 0.001; β = 0.18, 95% CI 0.07, 0.32, p < 0.05, respectively). There were no significant associations between SB, LPA, and MVPA with sleep measures in men across all three models. These findings indicate that higher MVPA has a positive association with sleep quality in middle-aged women.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".