1116 Naturalistic Sleep Tracking in a Longitudinal Cohort: How Long Is Long Enough?

Balaji Goparaju,Glen DePalma,Matt Bianchi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/sleep/zsae067.01116
IF: 6.313
2024-04-20
SLEEP
Abstract:Abstract Introduction Objective sleep tracking in health research, often via polysomnography or actigraphy, typically involves a small number of nights per person. Given the nightly variability of sleep duration, it remains unclear the extent to which relatively short observation windows may impact inferences in sleep research. Methods We attempt to quantify potential limitations of shorter duration sleep tracking research by sub-sampling from longer-term observation windows using both simulated data from known distributions and real-world Apple Watch sleep tracking data (30-365 nights) from over 35 thousand participants who provided informed consent to participate in the Apple Heart and Movement Study and elected to contribute sleep data to the study. Results Simulations demonstrate that the magnitude of deviation from truth defined using all available observations per individual, and the direction of bias depended on the sub-sample size, the type of simulated distribution (gaussian vs skewed), and the summary statistics of interest, such as centrality (mean, median) and dispersion (standard deviation (SD), interquartile range (IQR)). For example, n=7 longitdunal observations from a realistic normal distribution (7 + 1 hours) showed a 6.7% median under-estimation bias (IQR 24% under- to 14.7% over-estimation) compared to the true SD value (1 hour). Real-world sleep duration and sleep stage data, when under-sampled and compared to longer observations within-participant, showed similar SD bias at 7 nights, and similar convergence rates approaching the true value as longitdunal samples increase from 7 to 30 or more nights. Shapiro-Wilk tests for normality and log-normality show that 64% of simulated log-normal (skew) distributions fail to reject normality at n=7 samples, while real-world sleep duration data most commonly failed both normality and log-normality tests even using larger samples (180 nights per participant). Finally, simulating cohorts with 7 + 1 hours plus a subset of 6 + 1 hours shows that a single-night observation of “short sleep” (6 hours) is more likely from random variation of a 7-hour sleeper than from a 6-hour sleeper. Extending the observation to n=7 nights mitigates this mis-classification risk. Conclusion The results suggest that longer duration tracking provides important benefits to reduce bias and uncertainty in sleep health research that historically relies on small observation windows. Support (if any) n/a
neurosciences,clinical neurology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?