Effects of a Standardized Pamphlet on Insomnia in Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Sleep difficulties are common reasons why parents seek medical intervention in children with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). We determined whether a pamphlet alone could be used by parents to help their child's insomnia. METHODS: Thirty-six children with ASD, ages 2 to 10 years, were enrolled. All had prolonged sleep latency confirmed by actigraphy showing a mean sleep latency of 30 minutes or more. Parents were randomly assigned to receive the sleep education pamphlet or no intervention. Children wore an actigraphy device to record baseline sleep parameters, with the primary outcome variable being change in sleep latency. Actigraphy data were collected a second time 2 weeks after the parent received the randomization assignment and analyzed by using Student's t test. Parents were also asked a series of questions to gather information about the pamphlet and its usefulness. RESULTS: Although participants randomized to the 2 arms did not differ statistically in age, gender, socioeconomic status, total Children's Sleep Habits Questionnaire score, or actigraphy parameters, some differences may be large enough to affect results. Mean change in sleep-onset latency did not differ between the randomized groups (pamphlet versus no pamphlet). Parents commented that the pamphlet contained good information, but indicated that it would have been more useful to be given specific examples of how to take the information and put it into practice. CONCLUSIONS: A sleep education pamphlet did not appear to improve sleep latency in children with ASDs.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".