MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410335179 · doi:10.1016/j.pcad.2025.05.003

A social ecological perspective on interventions to address short sleep duration in adults with coronary heart disease

2025· review· en· W4410335179 on OpenAlexaff
Codie R. Rouleau, Sheila N. Garland

Bibliographic record

VenueProgress in Cardiovascular Diseases · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDuration (music)Psychological interventionPerspective (graphical)DiseaseCoronary heart diseaseInternal medicineSleep (system call)GerontologyCardiologyIntensive care medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Short sleep duration (<7 h/day) affects one-third of the population, is implicated in morbidity and mortality from coronary heart disease (CHD), and is driven by an interplay of individual, social, and societal factors. OBJECTIVE: To review observational and experimental studies that have tested interventions to address short sleep in various clinical presentations (sleep disorders, behaviorally induced short sleep, lack of sleep opportunity) and describe considerations needed for CHD populations. CONCLUSIONS: Few existing interventions have a primary aim to increase sleep duration in individuals with insufficient sleep, and none specifically target individuals with established CHD. Short sleep duration may be modifiable via treatment of insomnia, behavioral sleep extension, and system-level changes to healthcare settings, workplace policies, and communities. With further research on interventions that address diverse phenotypes of short sleep-while assessing long-term cardiometabolic outcomes, patient preferences, and mechanisms-of-action-sleep health could become an important component of CHD secondary prevention.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueProgress in Cardiovascular DiseasesSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207