ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Large-scale patterns of self-reported mood and sleep across the day and week on an online cognitive-training platform.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Mood follows a well-documented circadian rhythm. Sleep timing and duration are similarly shaped by biological and social factors. However, large-scale, real-world data on how these patterns vary across demographic groups remain limited. Prior studies often rely on laboratory data or social media linguistic analysis, which lack direct self-reports. This study examines hourly, weekly, and demographic trends in mood and sleep duration reports using one of the largest online datasets of directly self-reported behavioral health: 468,092 Lumosity users (aged 20-79) who reported daily mood (-2 to +2 scale) and sleep duration (≤5-9 + hours). We assessed variation by time of day, day of week, and interactions of age, gender, and race/ethnicity using ANOVA and linear regression. Mood was higher among users reporting in the afternoon and evening, and lower from late night through morning. Mood showed a U-shaped pattern with age, consistent throughout the week, and longer sleep duration was linked to better mood reports throughout the day and week. Sleep duration varied by time of report and by day of week, with longer durations in the afternoon/evening and on weekends. Women reported longer sleep overall, Black users reported shorter sleep, and sleep duration declined from young adulthood through midlife before rising slightly among older users. Higher mood was associated with longer sleep, and the weekday-weekend mood difference was larger among users reporting longer sleep. These findings demonstrate the value of large-scale digital data for public health insight, highlighting demographic disparities in sleep and the importance of midlife as a key intervention period. Because the sample is likely skewed toward higher educational attainment and health engagement, disparity estimates may understate true population-level differences. The late-night peak in negative affect aligns with literature on nocturnal suicide risk, though this nonclinical sample cannot directly speak to clinical risk or crisis-service need.
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.