International recommendations for sleep and circadian research in aging and Alzheimer's disease: A Delphi consensus study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Research in the field of sleep, aging, and dementia is rapidly growing. Consensus guidance is needed to facilitate high-quality research, comparability, and consistency. METHODS: A modified Delphi consensus study was conducted by the Sleep and Circadian Rhythms Professional Interest Area of the International Society to Advance Alzheimer's Research and Treatment (ISTAART) and an international panel of experts to establish recommendations for future research. RESULTS: After two voting rounds, the group (1) determined by consensus the most relevant sleep and circadian features to assess in the context of aging and dementia research, (2) established recommendations on data acquisition and report for future studies, and (3) identified high-priority future directions. DISCUSSION: This expert consensus study provides guidance to develop high-quality sleep and circadian research in the context of aging and dementia. Similar recommendations will need to be established for clinical practice. HIGHLIGHTS: We report the results of an international expert consensus study. Sleep and circadian rhythms features relevant to aging and dementia were identified. Recommendations on data acquisition and reporting were established. High-priority future research directions were identified.
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 | 0.544 | 0.481 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".