Performance on the Continuous Performance Test in Children with ADHD Is Associated with Sleep Efficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the level of sleep efficiency of children diagnosed with ADHD moderates their performance on the Continuous Performance Test (CPT) while receiving a placebo and while receiving methylphenidate (MPH). DESIGN: Nightly sleep actigraphic assessment during a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover clinical study (1 week of 0.5 mg/kg MPH; 1 week of placebo) were obtained on 37 children between 6 and 12 years of age with a DSM-IV diagnosis of ADHD. Subjects were divided into 2 groups based on the mean sleep efficiency score during the placebo condition, with subjects above and below the mean placed in the Poor Sleep Group (PSG) and Good Sleep Group (GSG), respectively. SETTING: Vigilance testing was conducted in the laboratory; sleep was assessed in the home. MEASUREMENTS: Sleep was monitored using actigraphy for 2 weeks. In addition, parents were asked to complete nightly sleep logs and a sleep questionnaire. The Conners' Continuous Performance Test (CPT) was used to assess vigilance. RESULTS: Significant interaction of Sleep Group with Medication was found on 1 CPT factor. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the present study support the hypothesis that sleep moderates performance on CPT in children with ADHD while receiving placebo or MPH.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".