Long‐term effectiveness outcome of melatonin therapy in children with treatment‐resistant circadian rhythm sleep disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date, there have been no prospective long-term studies of melatonin therapy in children. We report here data from a prospective follow-up study of 44 children with neurodevelopmental disabilities and treatment-resistant circadian rhythm sleep disorders (CRSD) who had participated in a placebo controlled, double blind cross-over trial of sustained-release melatonin. The follow-up study involved a structured telephone interview of caregivers every 3 months for upto 3.8 yr. The caregivers provided ratings of satisfaction, adverse effects, benefits, persistence with treatment and additional medications. Changes in melatonin dose were recorded. Open ended questions were included to capture caregivers' impressions and comments concerning melatonin therapy. Adverse reaction to melatonin therapy and development of tolerance were not evident. Better sleep was associated with reported improvement in health, behavior and learning. At the end of the study, the parental comments regarding the effectiveness of long-term melatonin therapy were highly positive. Parents whose children had sleep maintenance difficulties expressed a wish to have a commercially available controlled-release melatonin product which would promote sleep for 8-10 hr. Hypnotics for children with CRSD should be considered a second line of treatment for those who fail to respond to sleep hygiene and/or melatonin.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".