Short sleep duration is associated with higher risk of central obesity in adults: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of prospective cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and Objective The relationship between sleep duration and obesity has been the focus of numerous investigations. This systematic review and meta‐analysis of prospective cohort studies aimed to assess the relationship between sleep duration, abdominal obesity, and body composition. Methods PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched until February 2024. Cohort studies that assessed the relationship between sleep duration at night and central obesity measures or body composition indices in adults were included. The quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle‐Ottawa scale. Random‐effects meta‐analysis was conducted on studies that reported risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Eighteen studies were eligible to be included. Eleven out of the 18 studies were not included in the analysis as 10 studies did not report RR, and in one study, the definition of short and normal sleep duration was different from others. The results of the meta‐analysis indicated that short sleep duration was significantly associated with abdominal obesity (RR = 1.08; 95% CI: 1.04–1.12; I 2 = 49.1%, n = 7), but long sleep duration was not (RR = 1.02; 95% CI: 0.83–1.24; I 2 = 98.2%, n = 6). Conclusions Short sleep duration was associated with a slightly higher risk of central obesity, while long sleep duration was not.
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 | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".