Association Between Sleep Efficiency Variability and Cognition Among Older Adults: Cross-Sectional Accelerometer Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Sleep efficiency is often used as a measure of sleep quality. Getting sufficiently high-quality sleep has been associated with better cognitive function among older adults; however, the relationship between day-to-day sleep quality variability and cognition has not been well-established. Objective: We aimed to determine the relationship between day-to-day sleep efficiency variability and cognitive function among older adults, using accelerometer data and 3 cognitive tests. Methods: We included older adults aged >65 years with at least 5 days of accelerometer wear time from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) who completed the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST), the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease Word-Learning subtest (CERAD-WL), and the Animal Fluency Test (AFT). Sleep efficiency was derived using a data-driven machine learning algorithm. We examined associations between sleep efficiency variability and scores on each cognitive test adjusted for age, sex, education, household income, marital status, depressive symptoms, diabetes, smoking habits, alcohol consumption, arthritis, heart disease, prior heart attack, prior stroke, activities of daily living, and instrumental activities of daily living. Associations between average sleep efficiency and each cognitive test score were further examined for comparison purposes. Results: A total of 1074 older adults from the NHANES were included in this study. Older adults with low average sleep efficiency exhibited higher levels of sleep efficiency variability (Pearson r=-0.63). After adjusting for confounding factors, greater average sleep efficiency was associated with higher scores on the DSST (per 10% increase, β=2.25, 95% CI 0.61 to 3.90) and AFT (per 10% increase, β=.91, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.56). Greater sleep efficiency variability was univariably associated with worse cognitive function based on the DSST (per 10% increase, β=-3.34, 95% CI -5.33 to -1.34), CERAD-WL (per 10% increase, β=-1.00, 95% CI -1.79 to -0.21), and AFT (per 10% increase, β=-1.02, 95% CI -1.68 to -0.36). In fully adjusted models, greater sleep efficiency variability remained associated with lower DSST (per 10% increase, β=-2.01, 95% CI -3.62 to -0.40) and AFT (per 10% increase, β=-.84, 95% CI -1.47 to -0.21) scores but not CERAD-WL (per 10% increase, β=-.65, 95% CI -1.39 to 0.08) scores. Conclusions: Targeting consistency in sleep quality may be useful for interventions seeking to preserve cognitive function among older adults.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".