Relationship Between Sleep and Cognitive Frailty in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To explore the relationship between sleep and cognitive frailty in older adults. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: The Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO and PubMed databases were searched from inception to October 28, 2024. METHODS: Two investigators independently conducted literature screening, data extraction and quality assessment. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to evaluate methodological quality. This review followed PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: This review included 13 articles involving 14,223 individuals, and 10 studies included in the meta-analysis. Across 13 studies, the overall prevalence of cognitive frailty was 25%. Sleep problems were categorised into four categories; the results reported that poor sleep quality, long sleep time and insomnia were correlated with the presence of cognitive frailty. However, the relationship between short sleep time and cognitive frailty was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: This review quantitatively suggested that sleep parameters such as long sleep time, insomnia and poor sleep quality were correlated with the presence of cognitive frailty. Future research should adopt longitudinal designs and use validated instruments to measure both quantitative and qualitative aspects of sleep, thereby facilitating a thorough examination of the strength of the relationship between sleep and cognitive frailty, as well as the direction of causality. IMPACT: The review highlights the need to integrate comprehensive sleep assessments and targeted interventions into nursing care plans for older adults to enhance their sleep health. The findings will provide support for the development of effective interventions to prevent and manage cognitive frailty in the older population. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".