The science

What we know about sleep, and how well we know it.

Every tip, cutoff and explanation in Dusk traces back to a finding in these pages. Each one carries its papers and an honest rating of how strong the evidence is, including where it’s thin.

244 findings · 434 sources · 86 myths checked · updated 21 October 2026

Ten topics

One review per topic, from caffeine half-lives to where a sleep app’s job ends. Start anywhere.

What the evidence levels mean

Every finding gets one of five ratings, and the rating decides how Dusk is allowed to say it. Across the whole base, 162 of 244 findings are strong or moderate. The rest are said with a hedge, or not said as advice at all.

Strong evidence

Consistent results from guidelines, meta-analyses or several well-run trials.

In Dusk Stated plainly.

Moderate evidence

Good studies mostly agree, but there are fewer of them, or they are smaller or in narrower groups of people.

In Dusk Stated plainly, with its limits.

Limited evidence

A few small studies, lab work or observational data, without trials that settle it.

In Dusk Hedged: “may”, “small studies suggest”.

Mixed evidence

Studies of reasonable quality point in different directions.

In Dusk Hedged, and never used to promise a result.

Insufficient evidence

Too little good evidence to say either way.

In Dusk Never presented as a benefit.

How Dusk uses the evidence

Everything traces to a finding. The reasons on protocol steps, the cutoffs and temperatures, and the explanations Dusk’s AI writes are each tied to a finding here, and each finding lists the papers behind it.

Wording follows the rating. Strong and moderate findings are said plainly. Limited or mixed ones get “may” or “small studies suggest”. Insufficient evidence is never offered as a benefit.

The app says it simply; the numbers live here. Each finding has a one-line version safe to show anyone, and underneath it the doses, sample sizes and effect sizes, and who it doesn’t apply to.

Some signs mean a doctor, not a routine. Loud snoring with pauses in breathing, months of poor sleep, or low mood alongside it are reasons to see a clinician. Dusk’s rule for signs like these is to point you there, not to adjust your protocol. See the full list.

Wellness, not treatment

Dusk is a sleep-habit and tracking tool for general wellness; it does not diagnose or treat any condition.

Most of Dusk’s evening protocol is sleep hygiene: light, temperature, caffeine and alcohol timing, a steady wake time, a calmer last hour. These habits help many people sleep better. They are not how long-lasting insomnia is treated, and Dusk doesn’t claim to treat it.

  • Strong evidence

    Healthy sleep habits help many people, but on their own they are not a treatment for long-term insomnia.

  • Strong evidence

    For long-lasting insomnia, the recommended first step is a structured talking therapy called CBT-I, which is available in person or online.

  • Strong evidence

    Doctors use the word insomnia for trouble sleeping on 3 or more nights a week for 3 months or more, with daytime effects — Dusk can't diagnose it, but a doctor can.

Measuring sleep, and where an app’s job ends and what actually changes sleep go into the detail.

86 popular claims, checked

All myths →
  • Overstated

    “A nightcap helps you sleep.”

    One or two drinks barely change sleep onset in pooled data; faster onset appears at about 4–5 drinks, alongside dose-dependent REM loss and second-half disruption.

  • Partly true

    “Caffeine doesn't affect me — I can have an espresso and still fall asleep.”

    Sensitivity really does differ, partly for genetic reasons, and falling asleep is only delayed by about 9 min on average.

  • Overstated

    “Melatonin is a natural sleeping pill that knocks you out.”

    On average it shortens sleep onset by about 7 minutes and adds about 8 minutes of sleep.

How this was put together

Each topic was reviewed on its own, preferring clinical guidelines and consensus statements first, then meta-analyses and systematic reviews, then randomised trials, large cohorts, and lab studies last. Where a popular claim rests only on lab or mechanistic work, the review says so.

Every DOI was checked against Crossref, and 406 of 407 matched; the other resolves through a different DOI registry. The 27 sources without a DOI are guidelines and agency pages, checked by their address. A few numbers come from abstracts or secondary summaries where the full text wasn’t available; the reviews flag them.

The evidence base is versioned, and these pages are rebuilt from it, so what you read here is what the app and its AI are working from.