Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42243262›Full record

Observational studyScientific reports2026

Beyond composite scores in chronotype assessment: item-level predictive patterns in the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire.

Yannick A Metzler, Hannah M Schade, Michael A Nitsche, Edmund Wascher, Stephan Getzmann, Patrick D Gajewski, Lorena Melo

Registry-linked trialAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05155397 (The Dortmund Vital Study), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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.

NCT05155397 active not recruitingnot on this map

The Dortmund Vital Study: Impact of Biological and Lifestyle Factors on Cognitive Performace and Work Ability Across the Lifespan. An Interdisciplinary, Cross-sectional and Longitudinal Study

TypeobservationalSponsorTechnical University of DortmundRan2016 to 2037Enrolled627ConditionsAge-related Cognitive Decline
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Yannick A MetzlerDepartment of Ergonomics, Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors (IfADo), Dortmund, Germany. MetzlerY@ifado.de.ORCID 0000-0001-7362-3477
Hannah M SchadeDepartment of Psychology and Neurosciences, Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors (IfADo), Ardeystraße 67, 44139, Dortmund, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3916-9036
Michael A NitscheDepartment of Psychology and Neurosciences, Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors (IfADo), Ardeystraße 67, 44139, Dortmund, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2207-5965
Edmund WascherDepartment of Ergonomics, Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors (IfADo), Dortmund, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3616-9767
Stephan GetzmannDepartment of Ergonomics, Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors (IfADo), Dortmund, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6382-0183
Patrick D GajewskiDepartment of Ergonomics, Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors (IfADo), Dortmund, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8240-1702
Lorena MeloDepartment of Psychology and Neurosciences, Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors (IfADo), Ardeystraße 67, 44139, Dortmund, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9765-9391

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chronotype represents individual differences in circadian preferences that influence sleep-wake patterns, cognitive performance, and clinical outcomes across the lifespan. Given its growing relevance for clinical research and application, efficient and reliable chronotype assessment is essential. However, widely used tools like the Morningness-Eveningness-Questionnaire (MEQ) rely on composite scores, despite methodological concerns about multidimensionality and unequal item contributions. Addressing this limitation, the current study applied machine learning techniques to enhance theoretical understanding and empirical precision in chronotype assessment. Using the German MEQ in the Dortmund Vital Study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05155397), a prospective cohort study on healthy cognitive aging, we identified item-level predictive hierarchies and response patterns distinguishing morning, neutral, and evening types. Item 19 ("Which chronotype do you think you are?") demonstrated exceptional predictive utility, showing threefold greater importance than any other item. This metacognitive self-assessment appears to capture relatively accurate chronotype identification rooted in lived experience. Chronotype-specific analyses revealed distinct predictive patterns across types, each relying on different item combinations for optimal classification. Partial dependence analysis identified non-linear response patterns including sigmoid curves, threshold effects, and plateau regions. A six-item combination achieved robust overall classification, potentially reducing assessment burden by 70%. Overall, this research advances chronotype assessment by uncovering non-linear and heterogeneous classification mechanisms to circadian preference. The findings provide evidence-based foundations for developing abbreviated screening tools for primary care consultations, large-scale epidemiological studies, and clinical contexts. An open-access R tutorial ensures reproducibility and facilitates adaptation across diverse populations and assessment instruments, supporting widespread implementation in research and practice.

Indexed as

ChronotypeCircadian RhythmAgedCognitionFemaleHumansMachine LearningMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSleepSurveys and QuestionnairesChronotypeCircadian preferenceItem response patternMachine learningMEQMorningness–Eveningness QuestionnairePsychological assessment

Identifiers

PMID42243262
PMCPMC13236993

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.