Study Objectives Although trait-like individual differences in subjective responses to sleep restriction (SR) and total sleep deprivation (TSD) exist, reliable characterizations remain elusive. We comprehensively compared multiple methods for defining resilience and vulnerability by subjective metrics. Methods A total of 41 adults participated in a 13-day experiment: 2 baseline, 5 SR, 4 recovery, and one 36 h TSD night. The Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (KSS) and the Profile of Mood States Fatigue (POMS-F) and Vigor (POMS-V) were administered every 2 h. Three approaches (Raw Score [average SR score], Change from Baseline [average SR minus average baseline score], and Variance [intraindividual SR score variance]), and six thresholds (±1 standard deviation, and the highest/lowest scoring 12.5%, 20%, 25%, 33%, and 50%) categorized Resilient/Vulnerable groups. Kendall’s tau-b correlations compared the group categorization’s concordance within and between KSS, POMS-F, and POMS-V scores. Bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrapped t-tests compared group scores. Results There were significant correlations between all approaches at all thresholds for POMS-F, between Raw Score and Change from Baseline approaches for KSS, and between Raw Score and Variance approaches for POMS-V. All Resilient groups defined by the Raw Score approach had significantly better scores throughout the study, notably including during baseline and recovery, whereas the two other approaches differed by measure, threshold, or day. Between-measure correlations varied in strength by measure, approach, or threshold. Conclusions Only the Raw Score approach consistently distinguished Resilient/Vulnerable groups at baseline, during sleep loss, and during recovery‒‒we recommend this approach as an effective method for subjective resilience/vulnerability categorization. All approaches created comparable categorizations for fatigue, some were comparable for sleepiness, and none were comparable for vigor. Fatigue and vigor captured resilience/vulnerability similarly to sleepiness but not each other.

中文翻译：

---

主观嗜睡、疲劳和活力指标的原始分数一致地定义了睡眠损失的恢复力和脆弱性

研究目标 尽管在对睡眠限制 (SR) 和完全睡眠剥夺 (TSD) 的主观反应方面存在类似特征的个体差异，但可靠的表征仍然难以捉摸。我们全面比较了通过主观指标定义弹性和脆弱性的多种方法。方法共有 41 名成年人参加了为期 13 天的实验：2 次基线、5 次 SR、4 次恢复和 1 次 36 小时 TSD 夜。每 2 小时进行一次卡罗林斯卡嗜睡量表 (KSS) 和情绪状态疲劳 (POMS-F) 和活力 (POMS-V) 概况。三种方法（原始分数 [平均 SR 分数]、从基线变化 [平均 SR 减去平均基线分数] 和方差 [intraindividual SR 分数方差]）和六个阈值（±1 标准偏差，最高/最低评分 12.5% , 20%, 25%, 33%, 和 50%) 归类为弹性/弱势群体。Kendall 的 tau-b 相关性比较了 KSS、POMS-F 和 POMS-V 得分内和之间的组分类一致性。偏差校正和加速自举 t 检验比较了组分数。结果 POMS-F 在所有阈值下的所有方法之间、KSS 的原始分数和基线变化方法之间以及 POMS-V 的原始分数和方差方法之间都存在显着相关性。由原始评分方法定义的所有弹性组在整个研究过程中都有明显更好的分数，特别是在基线和恢复期间，而其他两种方法在测量、阈值或天数方面有所不同。测量之间的相关性因测量、方法或阈值而异。结论 只有原始评分方法在基线、睡眠丧失期间和恢复期间始终区分弹性/弱势群体——我们推荐这种方法作为主观弹性/脆弱性分类的有效方法。所有方法都为疲劳创建了可比较的分类，有些方法可用于困倦，而没有一种方法可用于活力。疲劳和活力与困倦相似，但不能相互捕获弹性/脆弱性。