ReviewNpj biological timing and sleep2025
Treatise on an alternative perspective on the two-process model of sleep regulation.
Review in Npj biological timing and 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The two-process model of sleep regulation, groundbreaking for the field of sleep research, describes sleep-wake behavior as regulated by the interaction of a homeostatic sleep-wake drive, process S ('sleep debt'), and a circadian pacemaker process C, that "gates" S between two thresholds. The model has achieved great acceptance and application. The conception of the model would have been fundamentally different if one of the model's creators (Borbély) had retained an alternative conceptual perspective, which he initially described at the time but did not elaborate on. The alternative considers the interaction of two sleep-wake processes more or less equivalent in strength and would a) allow the integration of REM sleep as an important circadian model constituent, b) adequately model four major aspects of the 24-h time course of sleep propensity, c) address some unresolved problems with the current model, and d) not conflict with the vast majority of published experimental research.
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.