Evidence for Internal Misalignment of Circadian Rhythms in Youth With Emerging Mood Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite evidence for links between circadian dysfunction and mood disorders, previous research has largely reported on single biological markers of circadian alignment. The available evidence on relationships between 2 internal phase markers (e.g., dim light melatonin onset [DLMO] and peak cortisol concentration) suggests these signals may be temporally misaligned in major depressive disorder with greater misalignment associated with more severe depressive symptoms. This study aimed to examine multiple circadian phase markers to determine whether any youth with emerging mood disorders present with clear evidence of internal circadian misalignment, and whether the degree of circadian misalignment is correlated with more severe mood symptoms. Cross-sectional data from 69 youth presenting for mental health care (20.6 ± 3.8 years; 39% male) and 19 healthy controls (24.0 ± 3.6 years; 53% male) included actigraphy monitoring; overnight in-lab measurement of 3 phase markers: DLMO, salivary cortisol peak (CORT), and core body temperature nadir (TEMP); and depressive symptoms (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale). Abnormal phase angles between 2 phase markers were defined as ±2 standard deviations beyond the control mean. In those with emerging mood disorders, earlier TEMP relative to other phase markers (DLMO, CORT, sleep midpoint) was associated with higher depressive symptoms. Sixteen individuals (23%) with emerging mood disorders had abnormal phase angles between at least 1 pair of phase markers, consistent with internal misalignment of the circadian system. The internal misalignment subgroup had later DLMO on average, however presented with a diverse range of individual phase angle abnormalities. Diverse disruptions of circadian alignment occur in youth with mental ill-health. The relative timing of core body temperature and melatonin rhythms may be key circadian features linked to depressive symptoms. Longitudinal research is needed to establish whether correction of circadian misalignment is relevant to treatment of mood syndromes in youth with evidence of disrupted circadian systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".