MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101832146 · doi:10.1542/peds.2007-3308

Sleep Hygiene for Children With Neurodevelopmental Disabilities

2008· review· en· W2101832146 on OpenAlexaff
James E. Jan, Judith Owens, Margaret D. Weiss, Kyle Johnson, Michael Wasdell, Roger D. Fréeman, O. Ipsiroglu

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Children's HospitalChild and Family Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSleep hygieneMedicineSleep (system call)Psychological interventionPromotion (chess)Multidisciplinary approachHygienePopulationPsychiatryCognitionSleep qualityEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sleep disturbances in children with neurodevelopmental disabilities are common and have a profound effect on the quality of life of the child, as well as the entire family. Although interventions for sleep problems in these children often involve a combination of behavioral and pharmacologic strategies, the first line of treatment is the promotion of improved sleep habits or "hygiene." Despite the importance of sleep-hygiene principles, defined as basic optimal environmental, scheduling, sleep-practice, and physiologic sleep-promoting factors, clinicians often lack appropriate knowledge and skills to implement them. In addition, sleep-hygiene practices may need to be modified and adapted for this population of children and are often more challenging to implement compared with their healthy counterparts. This first comprehensive, multidisciplinary review of sleep hygiene for children with disabilities presents the rationale for incorporating these measures in their treatment, outlines both general and specific sleep-promotion practices, and discusses problem-solving strategies for implementing them in a variety of clinical practice settings.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations233
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207