MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321596870 · doi:10.1111/jsr.13855

Branched‐chain amino acids and sleep: a population‐derived study of Australian children aged 11–12 years and their parents

2023· article· en· W4321596870 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa Matricciani, Dorothea Dumuid, Catherine Paquet, Kurt Lushington, Tim Olds

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sleep Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research Council
KeywordsActigraphySleep (system call)MedicineMicronutrientPopulationPediatricsInternal medicineCircadian rhythmEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Micronutrients, particularly amino acids, are thought to play an important role in sleep regulation and maintenance. While tryptophan is a known predictor of sleep, less is known about branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs), which compete with tryptophan for transport across the blood-brain barrier. The aim of this study was to determine the association between BCAAs and actigraphy-derived sleep duration, timing and efficiency, and self-reported trouble sleeping. This study examined data on children and adults collected as part of the Child Health CheckPoint study. Linear mixed models, adjusted for geographic clustering, were used to determine the association between BCAAs and sleep characteristics. Complete-case analysis was conducted for 741 children aged 11-12 years old (51% females) and 941parents (87% mothers). While BCAAs were significantly associated with children's sleep duration, timing and self-reported trouble sleeping, no associations were observed in adults, in fully adjusted models. In children, higher levels of BCAAs are associated with shorter sleep duration, delayed sleep timing, and more frequent reports of trouble sleeping.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.562

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.119
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sleep ResearchSame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207