Slow-Release Caffeine: A New Response to the Effects of a Limited Sleep Deprivation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to assess the interest of the intake of a new galenic form of caffeine called "slow-release" caffeine (SR caffeine) during a decrease of vigilance due to a limited sleep deprivation. DESIGN: The controlled method used compared three doses of SR caffeine (150, 300 and 600 mg) with a placebo. Tests were performed 2, 9 and 13 hours after each treatment. Wakefulness level was assessed subjectively through questionnaires and analog visual scales, and objectively with the Multiple Sleep Latency Test. Performance level was also assessed regularly with an attention test, a grammatical reasoning test, a spatial recognition test, a mathematical processing test, a visual tracking test, a memory search test, and a dual task. The motor activity was evaluated by wrist actimeter and safety of treatment was observed by regular clinical examination. SETTING: NA. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four young and healthy volunteers (12 men and 12 women) participated in a 32-hour sleep deprivation. INTERVENTIONS: NA. RESULTS: The results show a significant effect of slow-release caffeine vs. placebo, and on vigilance and performance when subjects became tired. The effects of SR caffeine lasted 13 hours after treatment. SR caffeine 300 and 600 mg are efficacious doses but the optimal dose (maximum effect without any side effects) for both men and women is after all 300 mg. Globally, there is no difference between placebo and caffeine during the recovery night period. CONCLUSIONS: SR caffeine (300 mg) seems to be an efficient and safety substance to maintain a good level of vigilance and performance during limited sleep deprivation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".