ArticleClocks & sleep2025
Impact of Varying Sleep Pressure on Daytime Sleep Propensity in Healthy Young and Older Adults.
Article in Clocks & sleep, 2025. 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Fixed sleep schedules with an 8 h time in bed (TIB) are used to ensure participants are well-rested before laboratory studies. However, such schedules may lead to cumulative excess wakefulness in young individuals. Effects on older individuals are unknown. We combine modelling and experimental data to quantify the effects of sleep debt on sleep propensity in healthy younger and older participants. A model of arousal dynamics was fitted to sleep data from 22 young (20-31 y.o.) and 26 older (61-82 y.o.) individuals (25 male) undertaking 10 short sleep-wake cycles during a 40 h napping protocol, following >1 week of fixed 8 h TIB schedules. Homeostatic sleep drive at the study start was varied systematically to identify best fits between observed and predicted sleep profiles for individuals and group averages. Daytime sleep duration was the same on the two days of the protocol within the groups but different between the groups (young: 3.14 ± 0.98 h vs. 3.06 ± 0.75 h, older: 2.60 ± 0.98 h vs. 2.37 ± 0.64 h). The model predicted an initial homeostatic drive of 11.2 ± 3.5% (young) and 10.1 ± 3.5% (older) above well-rested. Individual variability in first-day, but not second-day, sleep patterns was explained by the differences in the initial homeostatic drive for both age groups. Our study suggests that both younger and older participants arrive at the laboratory with cumulative sleep debt, despite 8 h TiB schedules, which dissipates after the first four sleep opportunities on the protocol. This has implications for protocol design and the interpretation of laboratory studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.