MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

No relation between sleep duration and adiposity indicators in 9–36 months old children: the <scp>SKOT</scp> cohort

2012· article· en· W1908028941 on OpenAlexaff
Lars Klingenberg, Line B. Christensen, Mads F. Hjorth, Sascha Zangenberg, Jean‐Philippe Chaput, Anders Sjödin, Christian Mølgaard, Kim F. Michaelsen

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Obesity · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortDuration (music)Sleep (system call)ObesityCohort studyPediatricsDemographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies in adults and children have repeatedly reported an association between short sleep duration and the risk of obesity. Studies using both objective measurements of sleep and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in children aged three are, however, lacking. OBJECTIVE: The study aims to examine both the longitudinal and cross-sectional associations between sleep duration and adiposity indicators in children aged 3 and younger. METHODS: On a cohort of 311 infants born at term, we used parent-reported sleep duration at 9 months, 18 months and 3 years of age, and accelerometer estimated nocturnal sleep duration at 3 years of age. Sleep duration at 9 and 18 months were used to predict adiposity at 3 years of age. RESULTS: We found no associations between any of the adiposity indicators at 3 years of age and (i) parent-reported total sleep duration at 9 months, 18 months and 3 years, and (2) nocturnal sleep duration measured with accelerometry at 3 years of age. Multivariate adjustments were used in both approaches. CONCLUSION: Our results do not support the hypothesis that short sleep duration is associated with increased adiposity in this cohort of young Danish children.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric ObesitySame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207