A prospective study of the association of weekend catch-up sleep and sleep duration with mortality in middle-aged adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health effects of weekend catch-up sleep (CUS) could differ depending on both the ability to obtain sufficient sleep during weekdays and amount of weekend CUS required to compensate for sleep lost during the week. Using data from 3128 middle-aged (40-64 years) participants of the Sleep Heart Health Study, we examined the longitudinal association of these two aspects of sleep with all-cause mortality. CUS was calculated as the difference in self-reported habitual sleep duration between weekends and weekdays, and classified into no, short (1 h), and long (2 h or more) CUS. Polysomnography-measured total sleep time, representing the ability to obtain sufficient sleep, was classified into short (< 360 min) or normal (≥ 360 min) sleep durations. We estimated multivariable-adjusted mortality hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for six groups divided by the extent of CUS and sleep duration. Participants were followed up for a median (interquartile range) of 12.3 (11.3-13.5) years. Short weekend CUS with normal sleep duration was associated with lower mortality compared to no CUS with normal sleep duration (HR, 0.48; 95% CI 0.27-0.83). When stricter cutoffs were applied for sleep durations, while the protective effect of short CUS with normal sleep duration (≥ 390 min) was strengthened (HR, 0.36; 95% CI 0.17-0.78), the harmful effect of short CUS with short sleep duration (< 330 min) emerged (HR, 1.84; 95% CI 1.08-3.14). Results highlight the importance of balancing sleep ability and CUS. Sufficient sleep may reduce weekday sleep debt and only a short CUS would be required on weekends, improving mortality in middle-aged adults. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41105-023-00460-6.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".