ASSOCIATION BETWEEN SLEEP DISORDERS AND VISION PROBLEMS AMONG FIRST NATIONS PEOPLE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Sleep disorders have an adverse effect on the quantity and quality of sleep, leading to reduced alertness and impaired ability to function normally. Recent studies show sleep disorders can cause vision-threatening conditions. Most research has not considered Indigenous people living in on-reserve communities. Thus, current knowledge regarding sleep disorders and vision problems among Indigenous people is limited. \nPurpose: This study aimed to estimate the current prevalence of vision problems and examined the association between sleep disorders and vision problems among First Nations living on-reserve communities in Saskatchewan. Additionally, potential mediators in this relationship were explored.\nMethods: This cross-sectional study used baseline data from "Assess, Redress, Re-assess: Addressing Disparities in Sleep Health among First Nations People," an ongoing cohort study. A survey was conducted in 2018-2019 with approximately 588 individuals in two First Nation communities. In the present study, the outcome variable was vision problems. Primary predictors were sleep apnea, insomnia, sleep deprivation, Epworth sleepiness score (ESS), and STOP-BANG. Multivariable logistic regression analysis and generalized structural equation modelling were employed. \nResults: The prevalence of vision problems was 18.71%. Sleep apnea, clinical insomnia, and ESS were significantly associated with vision problems after adjusting for other variables. The odds of having vision problems were 2.93 times (95% CI: 1.19 – 7.19) higher among those who self-reported physician-diagnosed sleep apnea and 2.21 times (95% CI: 1.12 – 4.37) higher among participants with clinical insomnia. Similarly, with each unit increase in ESS, the likelihood of developing vision problems increased by 1.11 (95% CI: 0.97- 1.28). Mediation analysis revealed that depression accounted for approximately 32% of the association between sleep disorders and vision problems.\nConclusion: These findings indicate a higher prevalence of vision problems and a positive association between sleep disorders and vision problems among First Nations people. Longitudinal studies are needed to determine the nature of this association.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".