Sleep Architecture, Obstructive Sleep Apnea, and Cognitive Function in Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Good sleep is essential for health, yet associations between sleep and dementia risk remain incompletely understood. The Sleep and Dementia Consortium was established to study associations between polysomnography (PSG)-derived sleep and the risk of dementia and related cognitive and brain magnetic resonance imaging endophenotypes. Objective: To investigate association of sleep architecture and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) with cognitive function in the Sleep and Dementia Consortium. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Sleep and Dementia Consortium curated data from 5 population-based cohorts across the US with methodologically consistent, overnight, home-based type II PSG and neuropsychological assessments over 5 years of follow-up: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study, Cardiovascular Health Study, Framingham Heart Study (FHS), Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Study, and Study of Osteoporotic Fractures. Sleep metrics were harmonized centrally and then distributed to participating cohorts for cohort-specific analysis using linear regression; study-level estimates were pooled in random effects meta-analyses. Results were adjusted for demographic variables, the time between PSG and neuropsychological assessment (0-5 years), body mass index, antidepressant use, and sedative use. There were 5946 participants included in the pooled analyses without stroke or dementia. Data were analyzed from March 2020 to June 2023. Exposures: Measures of sleep architecture and OSA derived from in-home PSG. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were global cognitive composite z scores derived from principal component analysis, with cognitive domains investigated as secondary outcomes. Higher scores indicated better performance. Results: Across cohorts, 5946 adults (1875 females [31.5%]; mean age range, 58-89 years) were included. The median (IQR) wake after sleep onset time ranged from 44 (27-73) to 101 (66-147) minutes, and the prevalence of moderate to severe OSA ranged from 16.9% to 28.9%. Across cohorts, higher sleep maintenance efficiency (pooled β per 1% increase, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.14; P < .01) and lower wake after sleep onset (pooled β per 1-min increase, -0.07; 95% CI, -0.13 to -0.01 per 1-min increase; P = .02) were associated with better global cognition. Mild to severe OSA (apnea-hypopnea index [AHI] ≥5) was associated with poorer global cognition (pooled β, -0.06; 95% CI, -0.11 to -0.01; P = .01) vs AHI less than 5; comparable results were found for moderate to severe OSA (pooled β, -0.06; 95% CI, -0.11 to -0.01; P = .02) vs AHI less than 5. Differences in sleep stages were not associated with cognition. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that better sleep consolidation and the absence of OSA were associated with better global cognition over 5 years of follow-up. These findings suggest that the role of interventions to improve sleep for maintaining cognitive function requires investigation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".