Role of Antioxidants in Sleep Disorders: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sleep is a crucial physiological process that plays an indispensable role in sustaining overall health and well-being. It is well known that various factors affect the multifaceted dimensions of sleep, from its underlying mechanisms or comorbidity to its profound impact on physical and mental health. Sleep disorders are very common, frequently underdiagnosed, and often overlooked. They are also linked to a wide range of illnesses and may significantly reduce the quality of life. There is strong evidence that chronic diseases are more likely to develop due to the adverse consequences of sleep deprivation, which include cognitive decline, emotional and mental health problems, as well as cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and metabolic health issues. Insufficiency of sleep and sleep disorders are common augurs of child/adolescent mental diseases, such as anxiety and depression, including suicidal thoughts. Additionally, we discuss a few sleep disorders, focusing on their effects, for instance, insomnia, sleep apnea, and restless leg syndrome. Antioxidants are molecules that can benefit the body by combating detrimental free radicals, which have been associated with health ailments such as diabetes and cancer. These are groups of compounds that counterbalance free radicals and reactive oxygen species (ROS) in the cell, and over the many clinical trials, they have been scientifically fascinating compounds due to their numerous advantages. As the relationship between sleep and health continues to evolve, this review highlights the intricate significance of antioxidants and their benefits for improving sleep quality and managing sleep deprivation. In addition to that, antioxidants are well known to defend the human body from oxidative stress and inflammation, which can disrupt sleep patterns, leading to various health ailments.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".