Pioneering a multi-phase framework to harmonize self-reported sleep data across cohorts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Harmonizing and aggregating data across studies enables pooled analyses that support external validation and enhance replicability and generalizability. However, the multidimensional nature of sleep poses challenges for data harmonization and aggregation. Here we describe and implement our process for harmonizing self-reported sleep data. METHODS: We established a multi-phase framework to harmonize self-reported sleep data: (1) compile items, (2) group items into domains, (3) harmonize items, and (4) evaluate harmonizability. We applied this process to produce a pooled multi-cohort sample of five US cohorts plus a separate yet fully harmonized sample from Rotterdam, Netherlands. Sleep and sociodemographic data are described and compared to demonstrate the utility of harmonization and aggregation. RESULTS: We collected 190 unique self-reported sleep items and grouped them into 15 conceptual domains. Using these domains as guiderails, we developed 14 harmonized items measuring aspects of satisfaction, alertness/sleepiness, timing, efficiency, duration, insomnia, and sleep apnea. External raters determined that 13 of these 14 items had moderate-to-high harmonizability. Alertness/Sleepiness items had lower harmonizability, while continuous, quantitative items (e.g. timing, total sleep time, and efficiency) had higher harmonizability. Descriptive statistics identified features that are more consistent (e.g. wake-up time and duration) and more heterogeneous (e.g. time in bed and bedtime) across samples. CONCLUSIONS: Our process can guide researchers and cohort stewards toward effective sleep harmonization and provide a foundation for further methodological development in this expanding field. Broader national and international initiatives promoting common data elements across cohorts are needed to enhance future harmonization and aggregation efforts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".