ArticleSleep2022
Raw scores on subjective sleepiness, fatigue, and vigor metrics consistently define resilience and vulnerability to sleep loss.
Article in Sleep, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bidirectional Predictors Between Neurobehavioural Measures During Total Sleep Deprivation and Baseline and Recovery Sleep Measures.Journal of sleep research · 2025Article
- Short-term and long-term phenotypic stability of actigraphic sleep metrics involving repeated sleep loss and recovery.Journal of sleep research · 2024Article
- Short-term and long-term phenotypic stability of actigraphic sleep metrics involving repeated sleep loss and recovery.Journal of sleep research · 2024Article
- Enhanced amygdala-cingulate connectivity associates with better mood in both healthy and depressive individuals after sleep deprivation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Cardiovascular measures display robust phenotypic stability across long-duration intervals involving repeated sleep deprivation and recovery.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Comparison of effects of modafinil and caffeine on fatigue-vulnerable and fatigue-resistant aircrew after a limited period of sleep deprivation.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Article
- Concurrent behavioral and electrophysiological longitudinal recordings forFrontiers in aging neuroscience · 2022Article
- The 3-Minute Psychomotor Vigilance Test Demonstrates Inadequate Convergent Validity Relative to the 10-Minute Psychomotor Vigilance Test Across Sleep Loss and Recovery.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Left Ventricular Ejection Time Measured by Echocardiography Differentiates Neurobehavioral Resilience and Vulnerability to Sleep Loss and Stress.Frontiers in physiology · 2021Article
- Cortisol and C-Reactive Protein Vary During Sleep Loss and Recovery but Are Not Markers of Neurobehavioral Resilience.Frontiers in physiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
objectivesAlthough trait-like individual differences in subjective responses to sleep restriction (SR) and total sleep deprivation (TSD) exist, reliable characterizations remain elusive. We comprehensively compared multiple methods for defining resilience and vulnerability by subjective metrics.
methodsA total of 41 adults participated in a 13-day experiment: 2 baseline, 5 SR, 4 recovery, and one 36 h TSD night. The Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (KSS) and the Profile of Mood States Fatigue (POMS-F) and Vigor (POMS-V) were administered every 2 h. Three approaches (Raw Score [average SR score], Change from Baseline [average SR minus average baseline score], and Variance [intraindividual SR score variance]), and six thresholds (±1 standard deviation, and the highest/lowest scoring 12.5%, 20%, 25%, 33%, and 50%) categorized Resilient/Vulnerable groups. Kendall's tau-b correlations compared the group categorization's concordance within and between KSS, POMS-F, and POMS-V scores. Bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrapped t-tests compared group scores.
resultsThere were significant correlations between all approaches at all thresholds for POMS-F, between Raw Score and Change from Baseline approaches for KSS, and between Raw Score and Variance approaches for POMS-V. All Resilient groups defined by the Raw Score approach had significantly better scores throughout the study, notably including during baseline and recovery, whereas the two other approaches differed by measure, threshold, or day. Between-measure correlations varied in strength by measure, approach, or threshold.
conclusionsOnly the Raw Score approach consistently distinguished Resilient/Vulnerable groups at baseline, during sleep loss, and during recovery‒‒we recommend this approach as an effective method for subjective resilience/vulnerability categorization. All approaches created comparable categorizations for fatigue, some were comparable for sleepiness, and none were comparable for vigor. Fatigue and vigor captured resilience/vulnerability similarly to sleepiness but not each other.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.