% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@INPROCEEDINGS{Bi:1019187,
author = {Bi, Hanwen and Bülow, Robin and Deantoni, Michele and
Elmenhorst, David and Elmenhorst, Eva-Maria and Ewert, Ralf
and Ferrarelli, Fabio and Frenzel, Stefan and Grabe, Hans J
and Hoepel, Sanne J. W. and Hoffstaedter, Felix and
Jahanshad, Neda and Keihani, Ahmadreza and Küppers, Vincent
and Luik, Annemarie I. and Mayeli, Ahmad and Mortazavi,
Nasrin and Nilsonne, Gustav and Rupp, Julia S and Saberi,
Amin and Schmidt, Christina and Spiegelhalder, Kai and Tamm,
Sandra and Thomopoulos, Sophia I. and Thompson, Paul M. and
Valk, Sofie and Vandewalle, Gilles and Völzke, Henry and
Weihs, Antoine and Wexler, Joseph and Wittfeld, Katharina
and Eickhoff, Simon and Patil, Kaustubh and Raimondo,
Federico and Tahmasian, Masoud},
title = {{A}ssociations between sleep and cognitive performance
using the {ENIGMA}-{S}leep data},
reportid = {FZJ-2023-05233},
year = {2023},
abstract = {Background: Sleep disturbance is considered a potential
risk factor for cognitive decline and dementia. Previous
large-scale studies using the UK-Biobank data have
highlighted a significant, albeit small effect size,
non-linear relationship between self-reported sleep duration
and cognitive performance. In this study, we performed
machine learning (ML) analysis based on both self-reported
and objective sleep duration and sleep efficiency using the
ENIGMA-Sleep data to predict cognitive scores at the
individual level.Methods: A total of 1,040 subjects from two
ENIGMA-Sleep collaboration sites (SHIP-TREND, Liege) were
included. Sleep measurements were sleep duration and sleep
efficiency extracted from Polysomnography (PSG) data and
Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). Cognitive performance
was measured using Stroop scores (Liege and SHIP-Trend) and
N-back Working Memory Accuracy (Liege). In addition, age,
sex, BMI, and depression (Beck DepressionInventory (BDI-II))
scores were added to our ML models as input features.
Multiple ML models were tested, including polynomial
regression, support vector machine (SVM) with linear and rbf
kernel, and random forest (RF) using the Julearn python
library. ML models’ performance was evaluated using mean
absolute error, mean squared error, R2, and holdout
correlation.Results: Our preliminary results demonstrated
that sleep measurements and demographic data were predictive
of the Stroop interference score in the Liege dataset(r2 =
0.283 ± 0.231, by RF) and the Stroop reaction time in the
SHIP-Trend dataset (r2 = 0.108 ± 0.077, by SVM-rbf) using
RF, SVM-linear, and SVM-rbf, outperforming polynomial
regression. Age was a significant feature in both datasets
with mean feature importance of 0.240 ± 0.0586 (RF) in
SHIP-Trend and 0.616 ± 0.218 (SVR-rbf) in Liege. Sleep
measurements showed weaker importance in the prediction
model. In SHIP-Trend dataset, PSG Sleep Duration was the
most impactful sleep measurement (feature importance =
0.00185 ± 0.00223 by RF), whereas in Liege dataset, it was
Self-report Sleep Efficiency(feature importance = 0.0479 ±
0.0477 by SVM-rbf). However, the Liege dataset's sleep
measurements and demographic data could not predict N-back
working memory accuracy.Conclusions: Based on two
independent samples, our findings demonstrate that Stroop
interference and reaction time scores can be predicted by
subjective and objective sleep measurements and demographic
data (mainly age) based on ML models.},
month = {Oct},
date = {2023-10-04},
organization = {eSleep Europe Virtual Congress 2023,
Virtual (Germany), 4 Oct 2023 - 6 Oct
2023},
subtyp = {After Call},
cin = {INM-7 / INM-2},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-7-20090406 / I:(DE-Juel1)INM-2-20090406},
pnm = {5252 - Brain Dysfunction and Plasticity (POF4-525)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5252},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)6},
doi = {10.34734/FZJ-2023-05233},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1019187},
}