{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02922824302134647, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01839080459770115, 'mean_word_length': 4.588990825688073, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Response to Letters to the Editor by Dr. Glozier and Grunstein and by Drs. Hertenstein, Riemann, and Nissen in response to our article "Sleep duration in the United States 2003-2016: first signs of success in the fight against sleep deficiency?"

We would like to thank Drs. Glozier and Grunstein for carefully reading and commenting on our article [1]. In hindsight, the article title would have better referred to “signs of progress” in the fight against sleep deficiency, which is still widespread in the US population [2]. As pointed out by the authors (and discussed in the introduction of our article), other studies have shown increases in sleep duration assessed with time use surveys in the United States over the past few decades (e.g. Bin et al. [3] and Luckhaupt et al. [4]). We are providing an update based on what is now a massive database of US time use data across 2003–2016. Our analyses show that the trend of increasing sleep duration has continued and probably even accelerated since the last review of the data in 2007. We believe that the strength of our article is not based on being the first to show this or not, but on the thorough investigation of concurrent trends in waking activities, and how they may explain some of the observed trends in sleep duration. Finally, we also agree with the authors (and repeatedly point out in the abstract and body of our article) that the nature and impact of the observed increase in the prevalence of long sleep duration deserve more attention from the research community. We would also like to thank Drs. Hertenstein, Riemann, and Nissen for their helpful comments. We agree that p-values have limited value when operating with large datasets that provide statistical power to find differences significant that are not necessarily also relevant [5]. We understand that an annual increase in sleep duration of 1.4 min per 24 hr on weekdays and 0.8 min per 24 hr on weekends sounds irrelevant. However, over the 14 year observation period it translates to 17.3 min more sleep each night, or 4.4 full days each year, at the end of the observation period compared with the beginning. Considering the cumulative nature of sleep and chronic sleep loss [6] and the fact that alertness increases in a monotonic fashion with prior sleep [7], we believe that this increase in sleep duration to be beneficial for some (especially short sleepers), and thus relevant. The sleep research community should be able to assess the relevance of the size of this increase in sleep duration, and we therefore refrained from providing additional effect size measures. In the multiple regression context, adjusted R2 is a standard effect size metric. Adding survey year to our fully adjusted model increased this metric by 2.1 per cent, and the model explained 9.9 per cent of the total variance in sleep time (ADJRSQ statement in SAS Proc Surveyreg, SAS Institute, Version 9.4, Cary, NC). The authors state that “mean sleep duration was slightly longer than 8 hours on weekdays and SLEEPJ, 2018, 1–2