Massive Study Links 6 Sleep Traits to Risk of 172 Diseases
Researchers have now found that those with the poorest sleep rhythms may face a 2.8-times-higher risk of Parkinson's disease, and a 1.6-times-higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes, compared to those with consistent patterns of wakefulness and sleep.
The findings come from the sleep data of more than 88,000 people in the UK Biobank, and while the results can only reveal correlations, they could point future clinical research in new directions.
Altogether, scientists at Peking University and the Army Medical University in China considered the health effects of six sleep traits: length, onset, rhythm, extent and efficiency of sleep, and frequency of wake-ups during the night.
Related:
During the average 6.8-year follow-up, 172 diseases were associated with these sleep characteristics, with many tied to just one trait.
To make the findings more robust, the associations were successfully replicated using another large database: the United States National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).
Across both analyses, sleep duration (as measured by wearable sensors) showed a relatively weak association with disease risk, despite the fact that in surveys, many participants expressed greater concern over how much they slept, rather than how they slept.
Sleep rhythm, meanwhile, showed three times as many disease links as those associated with sleep duration and onset. In fact, it was associated with nearly half of the study's 172 diseases.
The term 'sleep rhythm' essentially refers to cycles of wakefulness and sleep, from when a person goes to bed, to when they wake each and every day.
A more robust and regular sleep rhythm seems to be tied to healthier outcomes.
Senior author and epidemiologist Shengfeng Wang from Peking University argues it is "time we broaden our definition of good sleep beyond just duration."
"The existing literature has disproportionately focused on sleep duration rather than other sleep traits," write the study authors, led by Yimeng Wang from China's Army Medical University.
In the current study, the most erratic sleep rhythms, as opposed to the most consistent ones, were linked to type 2 diabetes, primary hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, acute kidney failure, and depression – to name just a few.
One of the strongest associations was with Parkinson's disease, which previous studies have also linked to sleep disorders.
Sleep onset and sleep quality were also associated with several diseases.
Those who went to bed after 12.30 am, for instance, were 2.6 times more likely to develop liver cirrhosis compared to those who went to bed before 11.30 pm.
In addition, the least efficient sleepers showed a nearly 1.8-fold increase in respiratory failure compared to those who slept the most efficiently.
The data is based on wearable sleep monitors as well as subjective reports, and that seems to be an important combination.
Nearly a quarter of self-reported 'long sleepers' actually slept fewer than 6 hours a night. The findings indicate that purely relying on surveys, as previous sleep studies have done, may not be reliable.
"For example, some participants with difficulty falling asleep or keeping stable sleep may have spent a long time in bed but have short real sleep," the researchers explain.
"As evidenced by our analyses, this dramatic misclassification of sleep duration has introduced substantial bias to the estimation of effect size for a number of diseases, including stroke, ischemic heart diseases, cardiovascular disease, and depressive episode and recurrent depressive disorder."
"Our findings underscore the overlooked importance of sleep regularity," concludes Wang.
The study was published in Health Data Science.
Related News
Common Viruses May Wake Dormant Breast Cancer Cells, Study Finds
Study Reveals The Shocking Amount of Plastic We Breathe in Every Day
Researchers Identified New Blood Group After 50 Year Mystery
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
4 hours ago
- Medscape
High Lp(a) Signals Risk Beyond The Coronaries
TOPLINE: Elevated levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] were associated with significantly increased risks for incident peripheral artery disease and carotid artery stenosis. Among patients with peripheral artery disease, those with high levels of Lp(a) (≥ 150 nmol/L) had a high risk of progressing to major adverse limb events. METHODOLOGY: Despite lifestyle interventions and therapies for lowering levels of cholesterol, a residual risk for major atherosclerotic complication persists. Researchers analyzed data from a large prospective biobank (2006-2010) to investigate whether baseline levels of Lp(a) predict the risk for onset and progression of extracoronary atherosclerotic vascular disease — a combination of peripheral artery disease and carotid artery stenosis. The UK biobank data included 460,544 individuals (average age at enrollment, 57 years; 54.2% men; 94.9% European) and followed them for a median duration of 13.6 years. Data on baseline serum levels of Lp(a) were retrieved, with levels ≥ 150 nmol/L (about 70 mg/dL) defined as high. The analysis assessed the incidence of peripheral artery disease and carotid artery stenosis and the progression to both the first major adverse limb event and first stroke. TAKEAWAY: Individuals with high levels of Lp(a) were older and more often men than those with normal levels of Lp(a) (P < .001 for both). Each 75-nmol/L (35 mg/dL) increase in levels of Lp(a) was associated with a 1.18-fold elevated risk for incident peripheral artery disease and a 1.17-fold increased risk for incident carotid artery stenosis (P < .0001 for both). Among patients with peripheral artery disease, those with high levels of Lp(a) had a 1.6-fold higher risk of developing major adverse limb events than those with normal levels of Lp(a) (P = .004). IN PRACTICE: 'Participants with established atherosclerotic vascular disease and elevated Lp(a) concentrations may represent the ideal group to benefit from targeted preventive interventions,' the researchers noted. '[The study's] findings make a strong case to explore the effect of therapies to lower Lp(a) in participants with PAD [peripheral artery disease] and carotid stenosis towards the goal of slowing disease progression and reducing major complications of amputation and stroke,' they added. SOURCE: This study was led by Tiffany R. Bellomo, MD, of Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. It was published online on July 28, 2025, in Circulation. LIMITATIONS: Measuring Lp(a) using immunoassays may be inaccurate for individuals with large Lp(a) isoforms. This study lacked measurement of ankle-brachial index to define peripheral arterial disease. The analysis may not have accounted for all potential confounding factors. DISCLOSURES: This study received grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Human Genome Research Institute. One author reported receiving research grants and personal fees from several pharmaceutical and healthcare companies and holding equity in multiple healthcare data and biotech firms. The same author reported spousal employment at a pharmaceutical company. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Newsweek
4 days ago
- Newsweek
A Doctor's Plea From a Nation Asleep on Brain Disease
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. As a physician who once treated pain, I now endure the unimaginable. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) has left me quadriplegic, dependent on a tracheostomy to breathe and a feeding tube to eat. Diagnosed at 35, my career ended abruptly. My family's story reveals the scale of the coming storm—my father battles Alzheimer's, my uncle succumbed to Parkinson's, and my grandmother to Lewy body dementia. We are not outliers; we represent a silent epidemic. Neurodegenerative diseases are surging, yet our nation slumbers, unaware of the devastation ahead. The public's complacency is by design, built on a statistical illusion. ALS, fatal since 1869, exemplifies this peril. With a median survival of 2-3 years, it strikes about 1 in 300 people in their lifetime, which predicts that over 1 million people now alive in the U.S. will succumb to ALS. Yet, under federal law, it is labeled "rare" because that definition is based on prevalence—a static snapshot of how many people are living with a disease at one time. Because ALS kills its victims so quickly, the number of living patients stays below the 200,000-person "rare" threshold. Its very lethality ensures it is never treated like the mainstream public health crisis it is. This paradox obscures a terrifying forecast: a projected 69 percent global increase in ALS cases by 2040. This illusion of rarity perpetuates a deadly inaction that extends to all brain diseases. Alzheimer's already affects over 7 million Americans and is projected to strike nearly 13 million by 2050, costing our economy $384 billion in 2025—and projected to nearly $1 trillion annually by mid-century. Exterior view of the headquarters of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Exterior view of the headquarters of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Getty Images The failure to confront this crisis stems from a Tale of Two Agencies within the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In 2017, Congress established the Oncology Center of Excellence (OCE), a dynamic hub that has revolutionized cancer treatment, accounting for 85 percent of all accelerated approvals in the last decade. This success is the result of focused will and resources; National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for cancer has topped $7.2 billion, compared to $2.8 billion for neuroscience. Neurology has no such center. Lacking an institutional home, it is fragmented, slow, and characterized by a risk aversion unthinkable in oncology. This disparity persists because of the tragic nature of these diseases. In the 1980s, ACT UP activists staged "die-ins" to force a reluctant government to fight AIDS. Patients with ALS, Huntington's, or Alzheimer's cannot mount a similar protest—we are physically silenced and immobilized, unable to "seize the FDA." This vulnerability places a unique moral obligation on our leaders to act proactively on behalf of the voiceless. The new FDA leadership now arrives with bold promises of change, posing a question that haunts everyone touched by an untreatable neurological disease: Will this time be different? Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. vows to "sweep away barriers" and to "figure out new ways ... of accelerating approvals for drugs and treatments that treat rare diseases." FDA Commissioner Marty Makary has several times asked why it takes 10 years for a drug to get to market and proposes a "conditional approval" pathway based on a "plausible mechanism." Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) Director Vinay Prasad promised to "take action at the first sign of promise for rare diseases." For the ALS community, these words are now a crisis of credibility. In a disease that has a median survival of 2-3 years, we are asking for regulatory flexibility for a treatment that began its Phase 1 trial in 2011 and was granted FDA Fast Track designation in 2014. As a petitioner on the July 3 citizens' petition for a stem cell therapy known as NurOwn, my community has presented the FDA with a clear test. Ultimately, we are seeking accelerated approval based on new, unprecedented survival data from an expanded access program—data that exceeds the extension of survival of many approved cancer therapies. But the initial request is simpler: invite the sponsor to resubmit its application for a full review. Ours is a request for due process to give a voice to the voiceless—the lowest possible bar for the Trump administration to demonstrate its promised flexibility. A clear, bipartisan solution has already failed once. The Neuroscience Center of Excellence Act, introduced in 2021 to replicate oncology's success for brain disease, stalled in committee. It is time for our leaders to find the political will that has been so catastrophically absent. Congress must immediately revive and pass the Neuroscience Center of Excellence Act. The FDA, in turn, must match its leaders' promises with action by granting our petition a review. The science is poised for breakthroughs, but it is being shackled by a broken system. For those of us on a deadline, this is not a policy debate. It is a death sentence. Awaken now, before this silent storm engulfs us all. The voiceless can't wait. Dr. Shahriar Minokadeh, a former anesthesiologist trained at Johns Hopkins and pain management at UC San Diego, types via an eye-gaze device. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Always Unwell? A Huge New Study Suggests It Could Be Your Sleep Schedule
If you're always a little under the weather or find that you are more susceptible to illness than your peers, it may actually be because of your sleeping habits. A new study published in Health Data Science, analysed sleep data from 88,461 adults in the UK Biobank and found significant associations between sleep traits and 172 diseases including liver cirrhosis and gangrene Eek. The good news is, if you prefer to sleep for longer periods of time, you're still safe as the researchers state: 'Contrary to common belief, sleeping more than 9 hours wasn't found to be harmful when measured objectively, exposing flaws in previous research.' The real secret to better health is you sleep 'Our findings underscore the overlooked importance of sleep regularity,' said Prof. Shengfeng Wang, senior author of the study. 'It's time we broaden our definition of good sleep beyond just duration.' While sleep quality and duration can play a part, irregular sleeping patterns were the biggest sleep factor to disease – accounting for a startling 23% of the diseases linked to sleep. Researchers from Vanderbilt University reported that participants in the most irregular quartile faced a 53 percent higher risk of dying over eight years, even after adjusting for age, BMI, and existing illness. Sleeping after 12:30 a.m. was linked to a 2.57-fold higher risk of liver cirrhosis and inconsistent sleep-wake cycles more than doubled the risk of gangrene. Neuroscientist Dr Matt Walker said on the Huberman Lab podcast: 'Regularity is probably best for the continuity of your sleep. 'When you give [your brain] regularity, sleep starts to become more stable, more stable means that it's less likely to be littered with awakenings, meaning that it's better quality of sleep.' How to improve your sleep regularity The sleep experts at The Sleep Foundation advise: 'Pick a bedtime and wake-up time that you can stick with and that offer ample time for the sleep you need. Follow this schedule every day, even on weekends. It may take time to adjust to this new sleep schedule, which is normal. ' If you would prefer to gradually adapt to a new schedule, you can make 15 to 30 minute adjustments over a series of days to get used to the changes. They also recommend that your sleeping pattern should: Stay consistent from day-to-day Allow for at least seven hours of sleep each night Align as closely with day and night as your lifestyle allows Related... I Thought We Needed To Sleep Apart – Then Came The Scandinavian Method I'm A Sleep Expert – This 1 Change In Teens Can Be A 'Big Shock' For Parents Neurologist Shares The 1 Sleep Change That Could Reduce Dementia Risk
