Biological Rhythms Research Laboratory, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL 60612, USA.
Sleep. 2022 Jan 11;45(1). doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsab228.
Although trait-like individual differences in subjective responses to sleep restriction (SR) and total sleep deprivation (TSD) exist, reliable characterizations remain elusive. We comprehensively compared multiple methods for defining resilience and vulnerability by subjective metrics.
A total of 41 adults participated in a 13-day experiment: 2 baseline, 5 SR, 4 recovery, and one 36 h TSD night. The Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (KSS) and the Profile of Mood States Fatigue (POMS-F) and Vigor (POMS-V) were administered every 2 h. Three approaches (Raw Score [average SR score], Change from Baseline [average SR minus average baseline score], and Variance [intraindividual SR score variance]), and six thresholds (±1 standard deviation, and the highest/lowest scoring 12.5%, 20%, 25%, 33%, and 50%) categorized Resilient/Vulnerable groups. Kendall's tau-b correlations compared the group categorization's concordance within and between KSS, POMS-F, and POMS-V scores. Bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrapped t-tests compared group scores.
There were significant correlations between all approaches at all thresholds for POMS-F, between Raw Score and Change from Baseline approaches for KSS, and between Raw Score and Variance approaches for POMS-V. All Resilient groups defined by the Raw Score approach had significantly better scores throughout the study, notably including during baseline and recovery, whereas the two other approaches differed by measure, threshold, or day. Between-measure correlations varied in strength by measure, approach, or threshold.
Only the Raw Score approach consistently distinguished Resilient/Vulnerable groups at baseline, during sleep loss, and during recovery‒‒we recommend this approach as an effective method for subjective resilience/vulnerability categorization. All approaches created comparable categorizations for fatigue, some were comparable for sleepiness, and none were comparable for vigor. Fatigue and vigor captured resilience/vulnerability similarly to sleepiness but not each other.
尽管在对睡眠限制（SR）和总睡眠剥夺（TSD）的主观反应中存在特质性个体差异，但可靠的特征描述仍难以捉摸。我们通过主观指标全面比较了多种定义弹性和脆弱性的方法。
共有 41 名成年人参与了为期 13 天的实验：2 个基线期、5 个 SR 期、4 个恢复期和 1 个 36 h TSD 期。每 2 小时进行一次 Karolinska 睡眠量表（KSS）、心境状态问卷疲劳量表（POMS-F）和活力量表（POMS-V）。采用三种方法（原始分数[SR 平均分数]、从基线变化[SR 平均分数减去平均基线分数]和方差[个体内 SR 分数方差]）和六个阈值（±1 标准差，以及最高/最低得分的 12.5%、20%、25%、33%和 50%）将弹性/脆弱性群体分类。Kendall's tau-b 相关系数比较了 KSS、POMS-F 和 POMS-V 评分中各组分类的一致性。偏置校正和加速 bootstrap 检验比较了组评分。
在 POMS-F 中，所有方法和所有阈值之间均存在显著相关性，在 KSS 中，原始分数法和从基线变化法之间存在显著相关性，在 POMS-V 中，原始分数法和方差法之间存在显著相关性。在所有方法和所有阈值下，通过原始分数方法定义的所有弹性组在整个研究中都有明显更好的分数，尤其是在基线期和恢复期。而另外两种方法则因测量、阈值或日而异。在测量、方法或阈值之间，相关性的强度不同。
只有原始分数方法始终能够在基线期、睡眠剥夺期和恢复期区分出弹性/脆弱性群体，我们建议该方法作为一种有效的主观弹性/脆弱性分类方法。所有方法对疲劳的分类都很相似，对嗜睡的分类有些相似，对活力的分类都不相似。疲劳和活力与嗜睡的分类相似，但彼此不相似。
