Page 77 - AN-4-4
P. 77

Advanced Neurology                                                     PSG findings in young poor sleepers




            Table 2. Comparing polysomnographic parameters of young adult males with poor sleep quality to normative values of young
            healthy adults
            Variable             Mean      SD        t       p‑value     MD           95% CI         Cohen’s d
                                                                                  UB        LB
            TST
             Study variable      363.65    33.10    −7.04    <0.001*    −40.45    −52.15   −28.75      33.10
             Normative value     404.10    45.20
            SE
             Study variable       89.70    1.55     19.50    <0.001*     5.27     4.72      5.82       1.55
             Normative value      84.40    9.30
            SOL
             Study variable       27.60    6.50     4.75     <0.001*     5.36     3.06      7.66       6.48
             Normative value      22.20    13.70
            ROL
             Study variable      125.90    36.20    3.61      0.001*     22.76    9.93      35.60      36.20
             Normative value     103.10    49.90
            WK
             Study variable       9.73     1.40     −2.72     0.01*     −0.67     −1.18    −0.17       1.42
             Normative value      10.40    8.70
            N1
             Study variable       11.80    1.60     18.98    <0.001*     5.32     4.75      5.89       1.60
             Normative value      6.50     2.90
            N2
             Study variable       51.10    2.50     −5.99    <0.001*    −2.58     −3.46    −1.70       2.47
             Normative value      53.70    8.80
            N3
             Study variable       12.90    1.80     11.12    <0.001*     3.38     2.76      4.00       1.70
             Normative value      9.50     6.60
            REM
             Study variable       14.00    1.50    −21.53    <0.001*    −5.70     −6.24    −5.16       1.50
             Normative value      19.70    4.30
            Notes: *p<0.05. N1: Non-REM stage 1; N2: Non-REM stage 2; N3: Non-REM stage 3. Normative values were obtained from ref.  16
            Abbreviations: CI: Confidence interval; LB: Lower bound; MD: Mean difference; REM: Rapid eye movement; ROL: Rapid eye movement onset latency;
            SD: Standard deviation; SE: Sleep efficiency; SOL: Sleep onset latency; TST: Total sleep time; UB: Upper bound; WK: Wakefulness.


            difference of +5.36  min, while statistically significant,   t = −2.72, p=0.01) with a relatively small mean difference
            represents a moderate effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.48).  of −0.67%, despite reaching statistical significance. The N1
                                                               sleep stage accounted for a significantly larger proportion of
              For ROL, participants showed significantly delayed
            REM sleep onset compared to normative values (125.90 ±   TST in participants compared to normative values (11.80 ±
            36.20 min vs. 103.10 ± 49.90 min; t = 3.61, p=0.001). The   1.60% vs. 6.50 ± 2.90%; t = 18.98, p<0.001). This increase of
            mean difference of +22.76  min represents a substantial   +5.32% indicates a very large effect size (Cohen’s d = 2.18).
            delay in REM sleep initiation, with a moderate to large   In contrast, the N2 sleep stage was significantly lower in
            effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.52).                    participants compared to normative values (51.10 ± 2.50%
                                                               vs. 53.70 ± 8.80%;  t = −5.99,  p<0.001), with a moderate
            3.2.3. Sleep stage architecture                    mean difference of −2.58% (Cohen’s d = 0.43).
            WK after sleep onset was significantly lower in participants   The N3 sleep stage was significantly higher in
            compared to normative values (9.73 ± 1.40% vs. 10.40 ± 8.70%;   participants compared to normative values (12.90 ± 1.80%


            Volume 4 Issue 4 (2025)                         71                               doi: 10.36922/an.8614
   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82