Biopsychosocial factors intersecting with weekly sleep difficulties in the menopause transition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Sleep difficulties are common in the menopause transition and increase risk for a variety of physical and psychological problems. The current study investigated potential interactions between psychosocial variables and within-person changes in ovarian hormones in predicting perimenopausal sleep problems as well as the potential interactions between poor sleep and psychosocial factors in predicting worsened mood, affect, and attention. STUDY DESIGN: The sample included 101 perimenopausal individuals. Participants completed 12 weekly assessments of self-reported sleep outcomes, depressive mood and affect, and attention function, and of estrone glucuronide (E1G) and pregnanediol glucuronide (PdG) levels (urinary metabolites of estradiol and progesterone, respectively); they also had 24-h tracking of vasomotor symptoms. Other psychosocial variables such as trauma history and stressful life events were assessed at baseline. RESULTS: A history of depression, baseline depressive symptoms, trait anxiety, and more severe and bothersome vasomotor symptoms predicted worsened sleep outcomes. Recent stressful life events, trauma history, and person-centred E1G and PdG changes did not predict sleep outcomes. However, there was an interaction whereby person-centred E1G decreases predicted lower sleep efficiency in those with higher baseline depressive symptoms. Higher baseline depression and trauma history also amplified the effect of vasomotor symptoms on sleep outcomes. In evaluating the effect of poor sleep on psychological and cognitive outcomes, stressful life events emerged as a moderating factor. Finally, trauma history and poor sleep interacted to predict worsened attention function. CONCLUSIONS: The current study suggests that certain individuals may be at greater risk of perimenopausal sleep problems and the resulting negative effects on mood and cognition.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".