The effects of sleep duration on the risk of dementia incidence in short and long follow-up studies: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sleep duration's association with future dementia could be a cause or consequence, or both. We searched electronic databases on 14 th April 2023 for primary peer-reviewed, longitudinal studies examining the relationship between sleep duration and dementia with any follow-up duration. We meta-analysed studies examining brief (≤6 h/night) and extended sleep duration (≥9 h/night) separately and divided the studies into those with follow-up periods of less or more than 10 years. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. 31 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. For brief sleep duration, a meta-analysis of short follow-up studies (≤10 years) found a 46 % increased risk of future dementia (relative risk [RR] – 1·46; 95 % Confidence Intervals [CIs] 1·48–1·77; I 2 = 88·92 %, 6 studies). Studies with long follow-ups (>10 years) did not show a significantly increased risk (RR – 1·12; 0·95–1·29; I 2 = 65·91 %; 5 studies). For extended sleep duration, a meta-analysis of short and long follow-up studies reported an increased risk of dementia (respectively RR - 2·20; 1·11–3·3; I 2 = 94·17 %; 4 studies and RR – 1·74; 1·30–2·18; I 2 = 86·56 %; 4 studies). Our findings suggest that brief sleep duration might be a prodromal symptom but not a risk factor of dementia. Extended sleep duration may be a risk factor. However, our results had high heterogeneity limiting external validity and generalisability. • • Brief sleep duration is only associated with dementia in studies with short follow-up periods (<10 years). • Extended sleep duration increased the risk of dementia in studies using short and long (≥10 years) follow-up periods. • • Heterogeneity meant that results are uncertain, and sleep duration may be associated with other risk factors. • Future research should analyse causes of sleep disturbance controlling for other risk factors and follow up of >10 years.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".