MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

DELAYED SLEEP PHASE SYNDROME CHARACTERIZES CIRCADIAN DISORDER IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE SLE

2025· article· en· W4410513271 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christina T. Stankey, Philip Chu, Alicia M. Hinze, Yo‐El S. Ju, Alfred H.J. Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Sclerosis and Related Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDelayed sleep phaseCircadian rhythmSleep disorderSleep (system call)Internal medicineEndocrinologyPsychiatryInsomnia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PV053 / #179 Poster Topic: AS06 - Comorbidities Background/Purpose Poor sleep quality is a common complaint of patients with SLE. Although chronic sleep disruption is known to drive circadian rhythm disorders, the effects of poor sleep quality have not yet been elucidated in SLE. Actigraphy is a validated approach to objectively assess 21 sleep variables and motor activity using a noninvasive accelerometer. In addition, actigraphy can characterize circadian dysfunction by assessments of activity. We examine the relationship of actigraphy data from patients with SLE with 1) disease activity and 2) subjective patient-reported outcome measures of sleep quality. Methods Seventy-six consented subjects from the Washington University Lupus Center with classified SLE were enrolled. Participants wore a wrist-mounted actigraph (Micro Motionlogger, Ambulatory Monitoring Inc, Ardsley, NY) for 1 week. Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Instrument System (PROMIS)-Sleep Related Impairment (SRI), and PROMIS-Sleep Disturbance (SD) survey instruments were administered to measure subjective sleep quality. SLEDAI-2000 Responder Index-50 (S2K RI-50) assessed disease activity (>4, active SLE). Actigraphy data were analyzed using Action W (Ambulatory Monitoring Inc), and circadian variables were derived using ClockLab (Actimetrics, Wilmette, IL). Unpaired Student t tests (2-sided, α < 0.05) were used to compare sleep quality and circadian dysfunction in patients with active vs inactive disease. Pearson correlation coefficient was used to assess correlation of actigraphy and circadian variables with subjective sleep quality. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics (IBM, Armonk, NY). Results No differences in actigraphic measures of sleep quality (eg, total sleep duration, percent sleep, wake after sleep onset, etc.) were observed in active vs inactive disease. Active SLE was associated with phase-dependent circadian variables including bedtime, acrophase (peak of circadian activity), M start (beginning of most active hours), and M start – waketime (p=0.01, discrepancy between natural circadian rhythm and actual activity pattern) (Table 1). Table 1. PROMIS-SRI and PROMIS-SD showed no correlation with actigraphy or circadian measures, while PSQI and ESS correlated moderately with % sleep and rho counts (activity during sleep period), and ESS additionally showed modest correlation with measures such as sleep efficiency, sleep and wake episodes, and MESOR (measure of mean activity level) (Table 2). Table 2. Conclusions Changes in circadian phase, but not sleep quality, is associated with SLE disease activity, with a phase delay in those with active disease. The ESS was the PRO that most highly associated with several actigraphy-assessed sleep parameters, including sleep efficiency and fragmentation. Circadian dysfunction may be an underlying cause for other widely experienced symptoms of SLE including cognitive dysfunction and fatigue. Future work will focus on examining this relationship.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rheumatology→Same topicSystemic Sclerosis and Related Diseases→French-language works237,207→