Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25325482›Full record

Trial reportSleep2015

Classifying vulnerability to sleep deprivation using baseline measures of psychomotor vigilance.

Amiya Patanaik, Chee Keong Kwoh, Eric C P Chua, Joshua J Gooley, Michael W L Chee

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Sleep, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Sleep deprivation, vigilant attention, and brain function: a review.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2020
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Amiya PatanaikSchool of Computer Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Chee Keong KwohSchool of Computer Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Eric C P ChuaCentre for Cognitive Neuroscience, Neuroscience and Behavioral Disorders Program, Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore.
Joshua J GooleyCentre for Cognitive Neuroscience, Neuroscience and Behavioral Disorders Program, Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore.
Michael W L CheeCentre for Cognitive Neuroscience, Neuroscience and Behavioral Disorders Program, Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo identify measures derived from baseline psychomotor vigilance task (PVT) performance that can reliably predict vulnerability to sleep deprivation.

designSubjects underwent total sleep deprivation and completed a 10-min PVT every 1-2 h in a controlled laboratory setting. Participants were categorized as vulnerable or resistant to sleep deprivation, based on a median split of lapses that occurred following sleep deprivation. Standard reaction time, drift diffusion model (DDM), and wavelet metrics were derived from PVT response times collected at baseline. A support vector machine model that incorporated maximum relevance and minimum redundancy feature selection and wrapper-based heuristics was used to classify subjects as vulnerable or resistant using rested data.

settingTwo academic sleep laboratories.

participantsIndependent samples of 135 (69 women, age 18 to 25 y), and 45 (3 women, age 22 to 32 y) healthy adults.

interventionsIn both datasets, DDM measures, number of consecutive reaction times that differ by more than 250 ms, and two wavelet features were selected by the model as features predictive of vulnerability to sleep deprivation. Using the best set of features selected in each dataset, classification accuracy was 77% and 82% using fivefold stratified cross-validation, respectively. MEASUREMENTS AND

resultsIn both datasets, DDM measures, number of consecutive reaction times that differ by more than 250 ms, and two wavelet features were selected by the model as features predictive of vulnerability to sleep deprivation. Using the best set of features selected in each dataset, classification accuracy was 77% and 82% using fivefold stratified cross-validation, respectively.

conclusionsDespite differences in experimental conditions across studies, drift diffusion model parameters associated reliably with individual differences in performance during total sleep deprivation. These results demonstrate the utility of drift diffusion modeling of baseline performance in estimating vulnerability to psychomotor vigilance decline following sleep deprivation.

Indexed as

IndividualityAdolescentAdultAttentionFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansMalePsychomotor PerformanceReaction TimeReproducibility of ResultsSleep DeprivationSupport Vector MachineTime FactorsWavelet AnalysisYoung Adultclassificationdifferential vulnerabilitydiffusion modelpsychomotor vigilance tasksleep deprivation

Identifiers

PMID25325482
PMCPMC4402656

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.