MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126895585 · doi:10.1080/09593980902835351

Sleep health and its assessment and management in physical therapy practice: The evidence

2009· review· en· W2126895585 on OpenAlexaff
Stanley Coren

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiotherapy Theory and Practice · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSleep (system call)Sleep debtSleep deprivationInsomniaPsychological interventionAffect (linguistics)MedicinePsychologyClinical psychologyPhysical therapySleep disorderPsychiatryCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sleep and sleep deprivation have become major health issues in our modern society. Impaired sleep can negatively affect physical and psychological well-being, and conversely, certain common conditions can impair sleep. Furthermore, insufficient or disrupted sleep can contribute to functional impairments. As health care professionals, physical therapists are singularly concerned with function and well-being. To understand the role of sleep and sleep deprivation on health, this article describes sleep, our contemporary culture of sleeplessness, insomnia, sleep needs, the physical cost of inadequate sleep, the psychological cost of sleep deprivation, and the effects of sleep debt on safety. How to assess an individual's sleep debt is then described, and a sleep inventory questionnaire and scoring scale are presented. Evidence-based recommendations for optimizing sleep are outlined, and these can be readily implemented by the busy clinician. The sleep inventory questionnaire can be used to evaluate the outcome of these recommendations or other interventions as well as serve as an assessment tool. Based on the literature, the assessment and evaluation of sleep and basic sleep recommendations need to be considered as fundamental clinical competencies in contemporary physical therapy care.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.438 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations31
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiotherapy Theory and PracticeSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207