The Irrecoverable Loss in Sleep on Weekdays of Two Distinct Chronotypes Can Be Equalized by Permitting a >2 h Difference in Waking Time
, Dmitry S. Sveshnikov 3, Zarina V. Bakaeva 3, Elena B. Yakunina 3, Yuri P. Starshinov 3, Vladimir I. Torshin 3, Elena A. Trutneva 4, Michael M. Lapkin 4, Zhanna N. Lopatskaya 5, Roman O. Budkevich 6, Elena V. Budkevich 6, Elena L. Tinkova 7, Marina P. Dyakovich 8, Larisa P. Cherapkina 9, Olga G. Donskaya 1, Alexandra N. Puchkova 2 and Vladimir B. Dorokhov 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Equation mentioned in introduction S(t)=[Su+C(t)]-{[Su+C(t)]-Sb}*e(-(t-t1)/[Tb – k * C(t)])
Advised to annotate Su, Sb Tb and k which need to be explained early in the introduction direct reader to table 2 far down the article
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Author's Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 1)
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Point 1:
Equation mentioned in introduction S(t)=[Su+C(t)]-{[Su+C(t)]-Sb}*e(-(t-t1)/[Tb – k * C(t)])
Advised to annotate Su, Sb Tb and k which need to be explained early in the introduction direct reader to table 2 far down the article
Response 1: Thank you very much indeed for pointing at these inconveniences for a manuscript reader. To correct them, we made the following changes in the revised version. In the method section, we moved the paragraph presenting the model equations at the end of this section, and we inserted Table 2 with the explanations of all parameters right after this paragraph. Additionally, we explained some of the abbreviations in the legend to Figure 1, and, moreover, this figure is now following this Table 2. Finally, we added a sentence saying that “All parameters of this model are explained in Table 2” in the text of the method section.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you very much for allowing me to review the article “How to overthrow “the tyranny of the early risers”? Permit >2-h difference between chronotypes in wakeups for their equalization on irrecoverable loss of sleep on weekdays.” For the Section “Applied Biosciences and Bioengineering” in the Special Issue “Research on Circadian Rhythms in Health and Diseases.
The recent “natural experiment” called “lockdown” demonstrated that, when home-workers/students were suddenly able to choose their own wake-up times, most slept later. Noteworthy, this “experiment” also confirmed the model-based prediction of a failure to decrease the weekend sleep duration during “lockdown” in response to the increase in weekday sleep duration leading to the decrease in weekday sleep loss
Their hypothesis was that, since the literature pointed at >2-h difference between chronotypes in the positions of their endogenous circadian phases, such estimates can indicate that the permitting >2-h difference in weekday wakeups of M- and E-types would be recommended for their equalization on the irrecoverable sleep losses on weekdays
the aim of this article was to use the model-based simulations of sleep times self-reported by M- and E-types for the development of a method of estimation of delaying shift of wakeups of E-types relative to the clock times for M-types’ wakeups required for the overthrowing “tyranny of the early risers”.
Major comments:
It is a very interesting work, but its methodology needs to be completed to be able to evaluate its results with credibility.
The introduction should be expanded as it is a complex topic, especially about E-types than M-types and their impact on the health of the individual.
Material and methods: the presented simulation models (Putilov AA. 1995. The timing of sleep modelling: circadian modulation of the homeostatic process. Biol Rhythm Res 26: 1-456 19.) Are they validated?. The main problem of this work is the validation of these models.
It is not clear to the participants in this experience where they were recruited, and what population they represent. It should be represented in a flow chart who was offered to participate, how they were selected and finally what was the participation rate in the total study. A table describing the main characteristics of the sample on which the experiment is carried out would also be essential, since sleep varies decisively throughout life, as well as its characteristics.
It should also be explained in more detail how the information has been collected, the characteristics of the population participating in the sample, the selection echoes that may occur and the sleep quality measurement instrument are fundamental for the interpretation of the results.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Author's Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 2)
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Thank you very much for allowing me to review the article “How to overthrow “the tyranny of the early risers”? Permit >2-h difference between chronotypes in wakeups for their equalization on irrecoverable loss of sleep on weekdays.” For the Section “Applied Biosciences and Bioengineering” in the Special Issue “Research on Circadian Rhythms in Health and Diseases.
The recent “natural experiment” called “lockdown” demonstrated that, when home-workers/students were suddenly able to choose their own wake-up times, most slept later. Noteworthy, this “experiment” also confirmed the model-based prediction of a failure to decrease the weekend sleep duration during “lockdown” in response to the increase in weekday sleep duration leading to the decrease in weekday sleep loss
Their hypothesis was that, since the literature pointed at >2-h difference between chronotypes in the positions of their endogenous circadian phases, such estimates can indicate that the permitting >2-h difference in weekday wakeups of M- and E-types would be recommended for their equalization on the irrecoverable sleep losses on weekdays
the aim of this article was to use the model-based simulations of sleep times self-reported by M- and E-types for the development of a method of estimation of delaying shift of wakeups of E-types relative to the clock times for M-types’ wakeups required for the overthrowing “tyranny of the early risers”.
Major comments:
It is a very interesting work, but its methodology needs to be completed to be able to evaluate its results with credibility.
Point 1:
The introduction should be expanded as it is a complex topic, especially about E-types than M-types and their impact on the health of the individual.
Response 1: We added in the first paragraph of Introduction a couple of sentences informing about the literature associating chronotype with individual differences in various domains, including the domains of neurophysiology, psychiatry, cognitive psychology, personality, and mental and physical health (with the reference to two additional literature sources). Moreover, we added a new paragraph in Discussion for discussing (with the reference to 7 additional literature sources) the impact of chronotype on general health and sleep quality (see also Response 4 with the explanation of a reason for limiting description of health and sleep quality impacts in this particular manuscript.
Point 2:
Material and methods: the presented simulation models (Putilov AA. 1995. The timing of sleep modelling: circadian modulation of the homeostatic process. Biol Rhythm Res 26: 1-456 19.) Are they validated?. The main problem of this work is the validation of these models.
Response 2: The model was validated several times in various publications. We added in the revised version only one sentence about validation saying “The model was validated by comparing a model prediction [16] with data of two latest “natural experiments” [14,15].” In fact, the examples are numerous. For instance, the present study is another example of such validation of a simulation model (by comparing a model prediction with data), the model and experimental evidence on the markers of circadian phase position predicted the necessity to shift wakeups of E-types on more than 2 h relative to wakeups of M-types, and the survey data on either lecturers or students supported this prediction. Moreover, in the cited publications ([14,15]) we mentioned the example of validation of our simulation model’s prediction by independent researchers, namely, our initial simulation (Putilov, 1995) predicted the position of a peak of SWA - at around 15:00 - and this result was experimentally confirmed two decades later in the study published by two Lazars and Dijk (Lazar AS, Lazar ZI, Dijk DJ. 2015. Circadian regulation of slow waves in human sleep: Topographical aspects. Neuroimage 116:123-34).
Point 3:
It is not clear to the participants in this experience where they were recruited, and what population they represent. It should be represented in a flow chart who was offered to participate, how they were selected and finally what was the participation rate in the total study. A table describing the main characteristics of the sample on which the experiment is carried out would also be essential, since sleep varies decisively throughout life, as well as its characteristics.
Response 3: Pls find below the full content of Appendix that we added to the revised version of the submission. This Appendix includes more details on selection, exclusion criteria, and various chronobiological and somnological characteristics of the participants from 8 samples (see also the previous responses on the selection issues). We fully agree with the comment that “sleep varies decisively throughout life, as well as its characteristics”. This was the reason of dividing each of survey datasets into two ages, university students and lecturers, and the reason for the final statistical analysis aimed on comparison of data on sleep times in two ages to demonstrate that the simulation results obtained by simulating lecturer’s data can be applied for students’ data.
Point 4:
It should also be explained in more detail how the information has been collected, the characteristics of the population participating in the sample, the selection echoes that may occur and the sleep quality measurement instrument are fundamental for the interpretation of the results.
Response 4: As mentioned in Response 3, pls find below the full content of Appendix that we added to the revised version of the submission. This Appendix includes more details on selection, exclusion criteria, and various chronobiological and somnological characteristics of the participants from 8 samples (see also the previous responses on the selection issues). In particular, Table A1 of this Appendix includes data on the nighttime sleepability scale that can be considered as one of the assessments of night sleep quality. We like the idea that the sleep quality measurement instrument is fundamental for the interpretation of the results, indeed, it is an interesting insight into the link between health and chronotype, thank you for pointing at it. Unfortunately, the responses to several other assessments of sleep quality were collected only in two Moscow surveys, and these assessments were specific for each of these surveys. Therefore, we will address this question, but later, in further separate analyses of data of each of these surveys. As for the discussion of the results of the present analyses and simulations, we think that, since the model says nothing about sleep quality, the discussion of general health and sleep health impact of weekday sleep insufficiency and chronotype can be limited in the revised version of the manuscript to one additional paragraph that was added to the discussion section. We noted in the end of this paragraph that health assessments were not included in all surveys, and, therefore, future research is needed to clarify the role of weekday sleep insufficiency and chronotype in causing problems for health and sleep.
see with Appendix in the attached pdf file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this paper, the authors used mathematical model to show that there is a necessity to permit >2-h difference between “E” and “M” types in weekday wakeups for their equalization on the irrecoverable loss of sleep on weekdays.
1. Please rephrase the title of the manuscript. Title is too long and not clear.
2. Please add discussion on the consequences (physiological and psychological) of being an “E” type compared to “M” type and vice versa.
3. Line 53- the word “to” is missing after “Accordingly”.
4. Line 119- the word “in” appears twice.
5. Line 358- please change “advance” to “advanced”
6. Line 386- please change to “are at increased”.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Author's Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 3)
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In this paper, the authors used mathematical model to show that there is a necessity to permit >2-h difference between “E” and “M” types in weekday wakeups for their equalization on the irrecoverable loss of sleep on weekdays.
Point 1:
- Please rephrase the title of the manuscript. Title is too long and not clear.
Response 1: The title of the manuscript was modified and shortened to make the message of the study clearer.
Point 2:
- Please add discussion on the consequences (physiological and psychological) of being an “E” type compared to “M” type and vice versa.
Response 2: We added in the first paragraph of Introduction a couple of sentences informing about the literature associating chronotype with individual differences in various domains, including the domains of neurophysiology, psychiatry, cognitive psychology, personality, and mental and physical health. Moreover, we added a new paragraph in Discussion for discussing (with the reference to 7 additional literature sources) the consequences of being E-type for health and sleep quality. We noted, however, that they were not assessed in this particular analysis, and, therefore, future research is needed to clarify the role of weekday sleep insufficiency in causing these consequences.
Point 3:
- Line 53- the word “to” is missing after “Accordingly”.
Response 3: We corrected this text on “According to”.
Point 4:
- Line 119- the word “in” appears twice.
Response 4: We corrected on “In the”
Point 5:
- Line 358- please change “advance” to “advanced”
Response 5: We corrected on “advancing” in the place and throughout the entire text of the manuscripts.
Point 6:
- Line 386- please change to “are at increased”.
Response 6: We added “are”, and thank you very much indeed for checking this and previous mistakes in the text of the previous version of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I have reviewed the new version of the original article “How to overthrow “the tyranny of the early risers”? Permit >2-h difference between chronotypes in wakeups for their equalization on irrecoverable loss of sleep on weekdays.” For the Section “Applied Biosciences and Bioengineering” in the Special Issue “Research on Circadian Rhythms in Health and Diseases.
I considered that many aspects have already been clarified, although he considered what information they have left in the appendix could have been integrated into the manuscript. The new title is much tighter
The article is currently much more understandable and transparent and provides information on a subject of great importance and little studied.
In the discussion, it should be reflected or taken into account how were the recruitment of the participants in this study, the fact of being an online recruitment, how can it affect the study?
Generally, participation tends to select those people who have problems with sleep, could it be so?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Author's Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 2)
Please provide a point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments and either enter it in the box below or upload it as a Word/PDF file. Please write down "Please see the attachment." in the box if you only upload an attachment. An example can be found here.
* Author's Notes to Reviewer
p
Word / PDF
or
Начало формы
Review Report Form
Open Review
( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I have reviewed the new version of the original article “How to overthrow “the tyranny of the early risers”? Permit >2-h difference between chronotypes in wakeups for their equalization on irrecoverable loss of sleep on weekdays.” For the Section “Applied Biosciences and Bioengineering” in the Special Issue “Research on Circadian Rhythms in Health and Diseases.
I considered that many aspects have already been clarified, although he considered what information they have left in the appendix could have been integrated into the manuscript. The new title is much tighter
The article is currently much more understandable and transparent and provides information on a subject of great importance and little studied.
Point 1:
In the discussion, it should be reflected or taken into account how were the recruitment of the participants in this study, the fact of being an online recruitment, how can it affect the study?
Generally, participation tends to select those people who have problems with sleep, could it be so?
Response 1: Yes, it is likely, we made the recommended comments on the recruitment procedure by the adding limitation paragraph in the end of Discussion: “The limitations of the present study include the method of recruitment of the participants of online surveys (see Appendix). It does not allow the examination of possible differences between non-responders and responders in their chronobiological and somnological characteristics. One of examples of such potential differences might be an increased proportion of those people who have rather than have not problems with their sleep. While it is important to recognize this, our aim was not to report the prevalence of sleep problems and patterns. As we mentioned in Appendix, any potential difference between non-responders and responders seems not to be critical for the achieving the main purpose of the study, i.e., to collect self-reported sleep times from M- and E-types and to simulate these times with a two-process model of sleep regulation for the development of methodology for equalizing chronotypes on weekday sleep loss (e.g., by calculation of delaying shift of wakeups of E-types relative to the clock times for M-types’ wakeups).”
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
