Sleep quality mediates the relationship between systemic inflammation and neurocognitive performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Systemic inflammation is a significant mechanism underpinning adverse cognitive changes. Sleep quality is a crucial factor associated with systemic inflammation and neurocognitive health. Elevated levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines in the periphery help mark inflammation. With this background, we examined the relationship between systemic inflammation, subjective sleep quality, and neurocognitive performance in adults. In 252 healthy adults, we measured the systemic inflammation reflected by serum levels of IL-6, IL-12, IL-18, TNF-α and IFN-γ, subjective sleep quality reflected by the global scores of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and their neurocognitive performance measured by the Hong Kong Montreal Cognitive Assessment. We observed that neurocognitive performance was negatively related to IL-18 (p = 0.046) and positively related to sleep quality (p = 0.006). We did not observe significant associations between other cytokines and neurocognitive performance. Furthermore, we found that sleep quality as a mediator explained the relationship between IL-18 and neurocognitive performance depending on the levels of IL-12 (index of moderated mediation: 95% CI = [0.0047, 0.0664]). Better subjective sleep quality buffered the negative effect of IL-18 on neurocognitive performance when IL-12 was low (bootstrapping 95% CI: [- 0.0824, - 0.0018]). On the contrary, poor subjective sleep quality mediated the association between higher IL-18 and poorer neurocognitive performance when IL-12 was elevated (bootstrapping 95% CI: [0.0004, 0.0608]). Our findings indicate that systemic inflammation was negatively associated with neurocognitive performance. Sleep quality regulated by IL-18/IL-12 axis activation could be a potential mechanism underpinning neurocognitive changes. Our results illustrate the intricate relationships between immune functioning, sleep quality and neurocognitive performance. These insights are essential to understand the potential mechanisms underpinning neurocognitive changes, paving the way for the development of preventive interventions for the risk of cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".