Do older people with poor sleep quality have worse cardiac autonomic control?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To identify the differences in cardiac autonomic control between older people with good and poor sleep quality. Material and Methods This is a cross-sectional study with 40 older people aged ≥ 60 years, registered at a community health center in Petrolina, Pernambuco, Brazil. The sleep quality was assessed with the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). To assess heart rate variability (HRV), the RR intervals (RRI) were recorded for 10 min with a validated smartphone app and a wireless transmitter Polar H7 positioned on the patient’s chest. The HRV parameters were calculated with Kubios HRV, and the data were analyzed in SPSS. Subjects with good and poor sleep quality (PSQI >5) were compared with the Mann-Whitney U test. Results A total of 31 older people were included in the final analysis, with 18 (58.1%) of them having poor sleep quality. Older people with good sleep quality have similar cardiac autonomic control to those with poor sleep quality. The medians of time (mean RRI, pNN50, SDNN, and RMSSD) and frequency-domain HRV parameters (LFms2, LFnu, HFms2, HFnu, and LF/HF ratio) were statistically similar (p > .05) in older people with good and poor sleep quality. According to the effect size, the HRV indicators were slightly better among those with good sleep quality. Conclusion There were no statistical differences in cardiac autonomic control between older people with good and poor 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".