ArticleClinical epigenetics2026
Distinct roles of chronotype, daytime napping, and sleep duration in biological and functional aging: a univariable and multivariable Mendelian randomization study.
Article in Clinical epigenetics, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSleep traits have been linked to aging, but observational designs cannot separate correlated sleep behaviors or establish causality. We used Mendelian randomization (MR) to estimate both total and direct effects of chronotype, daytime napping, and sleep duration on multidimensional aging outcomes.
methodsTwo-sample MR used large GWAS instruments for the three sleep traits against leukocyte telomere length, facial ageing, epigenetic clocks (IEAA, HannumAge, PhenoAge, GrimAge), frailty index, and cognitive performance. Inverse-variance weighted (IVW) was primary, with MR-Egger, weighted median, and MR-PRESSO as sensitivity analyses. Univariable MR (UVMR) estimated total effects; multivariable MR (MVMR) estimated direct effects accounting for intercorrelations.
resultsIn UVMR, napping was adversely associated with telomere length (β = - 0.11, 95% CI - 0.18 to - 0.05, PFDR = 0.002), facial ageing (β = 0.05, 0.01-0.09, PFDR = 0.036), GrimAge (β = 0.96, 0.09-1.83, PFDR = 0.048), frailty (β = 0.32, 0.20-0.45, PFDR < 0.001), and cognition (β = - 0.16, - 0.29 to - 0.03, PFDR = 0.036); HannumAge was nominal (β = 0.53, - 0.29-1.35, PFDR = 0.275). Chronotype related to HannumAge (β = 0.46, 0.15-0.78, PFDR = 0.032) with borderline links to IEAA (β = 0.36, 0.07-0.66, PFDR = 0.060) and poorer cognition (β = - 0.04, - 0.08 to - 0.01, PFDR = 0.060). Sleep duration was inversely associated with frailty (β = -0 .17, - 0.26 to - 0.08, PFDR = 0.001). In MVMR, napping retained associations with GrimAge (β = 1.08, 0.02-2.15, P = 0.046) and frailty (β = 0.29, 0.15-0.43, P < 0.001), while links to telomere length and cognition attenuated. Chronotype became protective for facial ageing (β = -0 .03, - 0.05 to - 0.01, P = 0.011) and cognition (β = 0.09, 0.01-0.17, P = 0.036) and showed no independent association with epigenetic clocks. The inverse association between sleep duration and frailty strengthened (β = - 0.36, - 0.49 to - 0.22, P < 0.001).
conclusionsSleep traits show distinct, partly independent causal links with aging: excessive napping adversely influences GrimAge and frailty; longer sleep duration independently protects against frailty; and chronotype benefits facial ageing and cognition after accounting for other sleep behaviors.
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.