Sleep hygiene and melatonin treatment for children and adolescents with ADHD and initial insomnia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of sleep hygiene and melatonin treatment for initial insomnia in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHOD: Twenty-seven stimulant-treated children (6-14 years of age) with ADHD and initial insomnia (>60 minutes) received sleep hygiene intervention. Nonresponders were randomized to a 30-day double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of 5-mg pharmaceutical-grade melatonin provided by the study's sponsor. RESULTS: Sleep hygiene reduced initial insomnia to <60 minutes in 5 cases, with an overall effect size in the group as a whole of 0.67. Analysis of the trial data able to be evaluated showed a significant reduction in initial insomnia of 16 minutes with melatonin relative to placebo, with an effect size of 0.6. Adverse events were generally mild and not different from those recorded with placebo treatment. The effect size of the combined sleep hygiene and melatonin intervention from baseline to 90 days' posttrial was 1.7, with a mean decrease in initial insomnia of 60 minutes. Improved sleep had no demonstrable effect on ADHD symptoms. CONCLUSION: Combined sleep hygiene and melatonin was a safe and effective treatment for initial insomnia in children with ADHD taking stimulant 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".