EXPLORING THE ASSOCIATION OF SLEEP WITH COGNITIVE DOMAINS AMONG PEOPLE LIVING WITH DEMENTIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract People living with dementia (PWD) commonly experience sleep disruptions, which impacts mental alertness, increases daytime sleepiness, and results in poorer quality of life. While sleep preserves cognitive function among PWD, the relationship between sleep and different cognitive domains is unclear. Our objective was to explore the association between sleep and cognition domains among PWD. Twenty-three PWD completed a battery of cognitive tests (global cognition: Montreal Cognitive Assessment; executive function: Trail-Making Test (TMT), Digit Span Forward Test; perception and orientation: Benton Judgement of Line Orientation Test (BJLO); language: Boston Naming Test; learning and memory: Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test; complex attention: Digit Symbol Substitution Test) at two residential care facilities. Participants wore a motion watch on their wrist for 7 days to monitor sleep. Participants were primarily male (74%), white (87%), and 48% had unspecified dementia. The average number of hours of sleep per night was 4.6±1.2 hours. The overall regression model for sleep was significant (R2=0.80, F(10,12)=4.68, RMSE=42.32, p< 0.05). More sleep was associated with better perception and orientation (BJLO:β=0.57, p=0.03), greater sleep efficiency (β=0.93, p=0.01), longer wake after sleep onset (β=1.19, p 0.002), and there was a trend for better executive function (TMT:β=-0.34, p=0.09). PWD have inadequate sleep. Greater amounts of sleep seem to preserve perception and orientation and may play a protective role for executive function, but more evidence is needed. Regularly assessing sleep may be useful in screening and monitoring cognitive changes among PWD in residential care facilities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".