MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404121102 · doi:10.1101/2024.11.05.24316677

Sleep macro-architecture and dementia risk in adults: Meta-analysis of 5 cohorts from the Sleep and Dementia Consortium

2024· preprint· en· W4404121102 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie Yiallourou, Andrée‐Ann Baril, Crystal Wiedner, Jeffrey R. Misialek, Christopher E. Kline, Stéphanie Harrison, Ethan Cannon, Qiong Yang, Rebecca Bernal, Alycia Bisson, Dibya Himali, Marina Cavuoto, Antoine Weihs, Alexa Beiser, Rebecca F. Gottesman, Yue Leng, Pamela L. Lutsey, Shaun Purcell, Susan Redline, Sudha Seshadri, Katie L. Stone, Kristine Yaffe, Sonia Ancoli‐Israel, Qian Xiao, Eleni Okeanis Vaou, Jayandra J. Himali, Matthew P. Pase

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaHazard ratioCohortMedicineCohort studyIncidence (geometry)Proportional hazards modelPolysomnographyGerontologyPsychologyPsychiatryInternal medicineConfidence intervalDiseaseElectroencephalography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Study objectives Poor sleep may play a role in the risk of dementia. However, few studies have investigated the association between polysomnography (PSG)-derived sleep architecture and dementia incidence. We examined the relationship between sleep macro-architecture and dementia incidence across five US-based cohort studies from the Sleep and Dementia Consortium (SDC). Methods Percent of time spent in stages of sleep (N1, N2, N3, REM sleep), wake after sleep onset and sleep maintenance efficiency were derived from a single night home-based PSG. Dementia was ascertained in each cohort using its cohort-specific criteria. Each cohort performed Cox proportional hazard regressions for each sleep exposure and incident dementia, adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, anti-depressant use, sedative use, and APOE e4 status. Results were then pooled in random effects meta-analyses. Results The pooled sample comprised 4,657 participants (30% women) aged ≥60 years (mean age was 74 years at sleep assessment). There were 998 (21.4%) dementia cases (median follow-up time of 5 to 19 years). Pooled effects of the five cohorts showed no association between sleep architecture and incident dementia. When meta-analyses were restricted to the three cohorts which had dementia case ascertainment based on DSM-IV/V criteria (n=2,374), higher N3% was marginally associated with an increased risk of dementia (HR: 1.06; 95%CI: 1.00-1.12, per percent increase N3, p=0.050). Conclusions There were no consistent associations between sleep macro-architecture measured and the risk of incident dementia. Implementing more nuanced sleep metrics remains an important next step for uncovering more about sleep-dementia associations. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Poor sleep may represent a potential lifestyle risk factor for dementia. Sleep is thought to be important for the clearance of toxic Alzheimer’s disease proteins, but whether sleep is associated with dementia risk remains unclear. In the largest study of its kind, utilizing overnight polysomnographic assessment of sleep and data from 5 large U.S cohort studies, we examined the association between sleep macro-architecture and dementia risk. Meta-analysis revealed no clear associations between sleep measures and dementia risk, though there was a suggestion that a higher proportion of N3 sleep may be associated with greater dementia risk. Further exploration of sleep patterns across time, latent sleep traits across metrics, and sleep micro-architecture remain as important next steps for understanding sleep-dementia associations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.050
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicSleep and related disorders→French-language works237,207→