Back

Reallocation of 24-hour physical behaviour composition and mortality: exploring effect modification by sleep characteristics

Bian, W.; Ahmadi, M.; Mitchell, J. J.; Biswas, R. K.; Koemel, N. A.; Dumuid, D.; Chastin, S. F.; Blodgett, J. M. F.; Chaput, J.-P.; Hamer, M.; Stamatakis, E.

2026-03-25 epidemiology
10.64898/2026.03.23.26349126 medRxiv
Show abstract

Time compositions of physical behaviours are associated with premature mortality, but the moderating role of sleep remains unclear. Using data from the UK Biobank accelerometry subsample, we examined associations of time reallocations between five device-measured physical behaviours (sleep, sedentary behaviour (SB), standing, light-intensity (LPA) and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA)) with all-cause, cardiovascular disease (CVD) and physical activity-related cancer mortality, and the potential effect modification by sleep duration and regularity. Compositional Cox regression was used to examine associations of behavioural reallocations with mortality. In 58,149 adults, 2,209 deaths occurred over a mean follow-up of 8.0 years. Among participants who meet sleep duration guidelines, reallocating 30 minutes from sleep to standing, LPA or MVPA was favourably associated with all-cause mortality with HRs of 0.86 (95%CI 0.79, 0.93), 0.87 (0.80, 0.95), and 0.80 (0.73, 0.87), respectively. Reallocating 30 minutes from sleep to SB, standing, or LPA was adversely associated with CVD risk (HRs 1.08 (1.02, 1.15), 1.10 (1.01, 1.20), and 1.11 (1.03, 1.20)) among those not meeting guidelines. Beneficial associations of reallocating SB to sleep were evident only amongst short (<7h/day) or regular (SRI>87.8) sleepers across mortality outcomes. Our findings support incorporating sleep characteristics into future personalised behavioural interventions design and behavioural targets.

Matching journals

The top 11 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.