Associations between self-reported sleep patterns and health, cognition and amyloid measures: results from the Wisconsin Registry for Alzheimer’s Prevention

Abstract Previous studies suggest associations between self-reported sleep problems and poorer health, cognition, Alzheimer’s disease pathology and dementia-related outcomes. It is important to develop a deeper understanding of the relationship between these complications and sleep disturbance, a modifiable risk factor, in late midlife, a time when Alzheimer’s disease pathology may be accruing. The objectives of this study included application of unsupervised machine learning procedures to identify distinct subgroups of persons with problematic sleep and the association of these subgroups with concurrent measures of mental and physical health, cognition and PET-identified amyloid. Dementia-free participants from the Wisconsin Registry for Alzheimer’s Prevention (n = 619) completed sleep questionnaires including the Insomnia Severity Index, Epworth Sleepiness Scale and Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale. K-means clustering analysis identified discrete sleep problem groups who were then compared across concurrent health outcomes (e.g. depression, self-rated health and insulin resistance), cognitive composite indices including episodic memory and executive function and, in a subset, Pittsburgh Compound B PET imaging to assess amyloid burden. Significant omnibus tests (P < 0.05) were followed with pairwise comparisons. Mean (SD) sample baseline sleep assessment age was 62.6 (6.7). Cluster analysis identified three groups: healthy sleepers [n = 262 (42.3%)], intermediate sleepers [n = 229 (37.0%)] and poor sleepers [n = 128 (20.7%)]. All omnibus tests comparing demographics and health measures across sleep groups were significant except for age, sex and apolipoprotein E e4 carriers; the poor sleepers group was worse than one or both of the other groups on all other measures, including measures of depression, self-reported health and memory complaints. The poor sleepers group had higher average body mass index, waist–hip ratio and homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance. After adjusting for covariates, the poor sleepers group also performed worse on all concurrent cognitive composites except working memory. There were no differences between sleep groups on PET-based measures of amyloid. Sensitivity analyses indicated that while different clustering approaches resulted in different group assignments for some (predominantly the intermediate group), between-group patterns in outcomes were consistent. In conclusion, distinct sleep characteristics groups w