MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416828353 · doi:10.1016/j.sleepe.2025.100124

Use of pre-workout dietary supplements is associated with lower sleep duration among adolescents and young adults

2025· article· en· W4416828353 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Kyle T. Ganson, Alexander Testa, Jason M. Nagata

Bibliographic record

VenueSleep Epidemiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoffee research and impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConnaught FundUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsYoung adultMultinomial logistic regressionSleep (system call)Logistic regressionAssociation (psychology)Mental healthDuration (music)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Pre-workout dietary supplements are commonly used among young people. • Pre-workout dietary supplements have high levels of caffeine. • Use of pre-workout is associated with lower sleep duration among young people. This study aimed to investigate the association between the use of pre-workout dietary supplements and average sleep duration among adolescents and young adults. Data from Wave 2 of the Canadian Study of Adolescent Behaviors ( N = 912) were analyzed. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were conducted to investigate the cross-sectional association between the use of pre-workout dietary supplements in the past 12 months and average sleep duration in the past 2 weeks. Adolescents and young adults who reported pre-workout dietary supplement use were at greater risk (RRR 2.53, 95% CI 1.27–5.05, p = 0.09) of reporting ≤5 h of average sleep per night relative to 8 h of sleep. Findings underscore that the high caffeine content of pre-workout dietary supplements is associated with shorter sleep durations, which are well below the recommended guidelines for adolescents and young adults. Health and mental health care professionals should educate pre-workout users on the association between use and sleep.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSleep EpidemiologySame topicCoffee research and impactsFrench-language works237,207