Associations between slow-wave sleep and dementia: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the literature to examine the associations between slowwave sleep (SWS) disturbance and dementia. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed and Embase for cohort and case-control studies that examined SWS differences between patients with dementia and healthy controls. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: In total, 19 studies (three cohort and 16 case-control) were included in analysis. Overall, one cohort study and 14 case-control studies found that reduced SWS was associated with dementia; the evidence was stronger in case-control studies than cohort studies. Study quality of studies varied; most were above average. CONCLUSION: Most studies regarding the association between SWS and dementia are cross-sectional; more longitudinal studies are needed to determine whether reduction in SWS can predict incident dementia. Future studies should include multi-night recordings and the use of standardised criteria to enhance the accuracy of recordings and facilitate comparisons between studies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".