MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390201584 · doi:10.1002/alz.073466

Sleep Patterns and Prospective Diffusion Weighted Imaging Biomarkers: the Sleep and Dementia Consortium (SDC)

2023· article· en· W4390201584 on OpenAlexaff
Andrée‐Ann Baril, Jeffrey R. Misialek, Marina Cavuoto, Stephanie Yiallourou, Dibya Himali, Erlan Sanchez, Christopher E. Kline, Susan Redline, Shaun Purcell, Alexa Beiser, Sudha Seshadri, Rebecca F. Gottesman, Pamela L. Lutsey, Matthew P. Pase, Jayandra J. Himali

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook HospitalMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDementiaPolysomnographyDiffusion MRIFractional anisotropyProspective cohort studyCohortInternal medicineDiseaseMagnetic resonance imagingPsychiatryElectroencephalographyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Adequate sleep is necessary to maintain brain health, with sleep disturbances associated with higher Alzheimer’s disease (AD) risk. Diffusion‐weighted imaging (DWI) metrics are increasingly recognized as useful neuroimaging biomarkers to detect AD‐related white matter degeneration. We assessed the relationship between sleep patterns and prospective DWI metrics in the Sleep and Dementia Consortium (SDC). The SDC studies associations between polysomnography (PSG)‐derived sleep with dementia risk and cognitive and MRI endophenotypes. Method The SDC includes five community‐based cohorts, two of which have DWI acquisitions: The Framingham Heart Study (FHS) and the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study (ARIC). Dementia‐free participants who underwent both PSG and DWI‐MRI were selected, including 354 FHS participants (56.6±7.1y, 57%W), and 184 ARIC participants (61.6±5.0y, 52%W). The MRI session was approximately 15 years after the PSG on average (FHS:17.0±1.3y; ARIC:15.8±0.8y). Fractional anisotropy (FA) and mean diffusivity (MD) were considered for both cohorts, in addition to free‐water (FW) in the FHS. Sleep metrics were harmonized centrally, distributed for cohort‐specific linear regressions, and study‐level estimates were pooled in random effects meta‐analyses. Analyses were adjusted for demographics, obesity, time between PSG and MRI, antidepressants and sedative medication usage. An interaction term by APOE4 allele carrier status in regression models was used to test its moderating effect. Result In the FHS, sleep fragmentation was associated with DWI measures in the expected direction: Higher Wake After Sleep Onset and lower Sleep Maintenance Efficiency were associated with lower FA (β±SE = ‐0.17±0.09,p = 0.04; β±SE = 0.23±0.10,p = 0.03), higher MD (β±SE = 0.15±0.07,p = 0.04; β±SE = ‐0.20±0.09,p = 0.03), and higher FW (β±SE = 0.17±0.07,p = 0.02; β±SE = ‐0.22±0.08,p = 0.008). Meta‐analysis of FHS and ARIC revealed significant pooled effects between lower Sleep Maintenance Efficiency and lower FA (β±SE = 0.17±0.08,p = 0.04). In the FHS, APOE4 allele significantly moderated the association between REM sleep proportion with FA and MD, where lower REM sleep percentage was associated with higher MD (β±SE = ‐4.89±1.95,p = 0.02) and lower FA (β±SE = 4.93±2.26,p = 0.03) in APOE4 carriers only. Conclusion In the SDC, sleep fragmentation was associated with MRI markers of poorer white matter integrity 15 years later. Less REM sleep was associated with poorer white matter integrity in APOE4 allele carriers only, suggesting that disrupted sleep architecture may contribute and interact with neurodegenerative processes to affect brain integrity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.007
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicSleep and related disorders→French-language works237,207→