1218 Relationship Between Subjective Sleep Quality and Objective Sleep Parameters from Wearable EEG in Youth with Significant Anxiety and Related Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Sleep problems are prevalent in pediatric anxiety and related disorders (ARD), affecting nearly 90% of patients. Nevertheless, subjective sleep complaints routinely demonstrate poor agreement with objective sleep patterns derived from either actigraphy or polysomnography in non-psychiatric samples. The aim of this submission is to examine the relationship between subjective and objective metrics of sleep quality in youth with moderate-to-severe ARD. Methods We conducted a multi-method study involving a clinical sample of treatment-seeking youth (ages 11-17) participating in a CBT-based partial hospital program specialized in ARD. Participants complete standardized clinical interviews, sleep quality questionnaires, up to 10 nights of sleep diaries and wearable actigraphy, and at-home overnight ZMax EEG (up to 4 nights). To date, 44 participants (54% female, 86% white, mean age 15y) have completed data collection. We analyzed self-report questionnaires and three sleep stage variables from ZMax EEG scored using Dreamento): sleep efficiency (SE%; total sleep time / sleep period time), slow wave sleep (SWS%; minutes of SWS / total sleep time) and a sleep fragmentation index (SFI; the total number of awakenings or shifts to stage 1 divided by total sleep time [in hours]). Results Participants experienced high severity of illness as indexed by Clinical Global Impression (mean CGI = 5.4, sd = 0.8). Sleep disturbances and sleep-related impairments were present in our sample (PROMIS self-report sleep disturbance mean = 61.01 sd = 9.74, sleep-related impairment mean = 61.9, sd = 7.84). Average SE was 77% (sd = 15%) and average SWS% was 60% (sd = 20%; range = 79%). Average SFI was 8.1/h (sd = 4.7). Subjective sleep quality was not significantly correlated to any of our objective sleep indexes (|r|’s < 0.12; p’s > 0.05). Conclusion Our youth with moderate-to-severe ARD report clinically significant problems with sleep and sleep-related impairments. Sleep efficiency may be lower than age-matched non clinical samples. Objective indexes of sleep depth and quality were not related to subjective reports. Next steps will include expanding the analyses to include additional data and examining these relationships with specific clinical symptoms. Support (if any) NIGMS COBRE (P20GM139743)
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".