Circadian motor activity affected by stimulant medication in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a highly prevalent disorder occurring in approximately 3-5% of school-aged children. The core symptoms of ADHD are effectively treated with stimulant medications such as methylphenidate; however, there are also negative side effects, including insomnia. It has been suggested that administration of stimulant medication may alter the timing or regularity of circadian motor activity levels. This study aimed to investigate the impact of stimulant medication on the strength and timing of circadian rhythms in 16 stimulant medication-naïve children with ADHD. Participants were monitored for changes in motor activity during a 3-week blinded placebo-controlled medication trial to examine the impact of immediate-release methylphenidate hydrochloride. Motor activity was measured by actigraphy, and 24-h activity profiles were analysed using cosinor analyses to identify measurable changes in circadian rhythms. The children in this sample demonstrated significant increases in motor activity during the sleep-onset latency period. They also showed a significant reduction in relative circadian amplitude and a phase-delay in the timing of the daily rhythm. Clinicians and parents of children being treated with stimulant medication for ADHD should be aware that stimulant medication may cause disruption of sleep/circadian rhythms. Behavioural strategies to improve sleep may be useful for children experiencing these negative effects from medication.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".