English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Existing models of the human circadian clock accurately predict phase at group-level but not at individual-level. Interindividual variability in light sensitivity is not currently accounted for in these models and may be a practical approach to improving individual-level predictions. Using the gold-standard predictive model, we (i) identified whether varying light sensitivity parameters produces meaningful changes in predicted phase in field conditions; and (ii) tested whether optimizing parameters can significantly improve accuracy of circadian phase prediction. Methods Healthy participants (n=12, 7 women, aged 18-26) underwent continuous light and activity monitoring for 3 weeks (Actiwatch Spectrum). Salivary dim light melatonin onset (DLMO) was measured each week. A model of the human circadian clock and its response to light was used to predict the three weekly DLMO times using the individual’s light data. A sensitivity analysis was performed varying three model parameters within physiological ranges: (i) amplitude of the light response [p]; (ii) advance vs. delay bias of the light response [K]; and (iii) intrinsic circadian period [tau]. These parameters were then fitted using least squares estimation to obtain optimal predictions of DLMO for each individual. Accuracy was compared between optimized parameters and default parameters. Results The default model predicted DLMO with mean absolute error of 1.02h. Sensitivity analysis showed the average range of variation in predicted DLMOs across participants was 0.65h for p, 4.28h for K and 3.26h for tau. Fitting parameters independently, we found mean absolute error of 0.85h for p, 0.71h for K and 0.75h for tau. Fitting p and K together reduced mean absolute error to 0.57h. Conclusion Light sensitivity parameters capture similar or greater variability in phase as intrinsic circadian period, indicating they are a viable option for individualising circadian phase predictions. Future prospective work is needed using measures of light sensitivity to validate this approach. Support

0433 Targeting Light Sensitivity Parameters to Optimize Circadian Phase Predictions