MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159426877 · doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsr044

Behavioral Interventions for Sleep Problems in Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders: Current Findings and Future Directions

2011· review· en· W2159426877 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Vriend, Penny Corkum, Erin C. Moon, Isabel M. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Psychology · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChild Nutrition and Feeding Issues
Canadian institutionsIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBedtimePsychological interventionAutismAutism spectrum disorderPsychologyClinical psychologySleep (system call)Developmental psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine behavioral interventions for sleep problems in children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). METHODS: A systematic review evaluating all published studies examining the effectiveness of behavioral treatment of sleep problems in children with ASD is presented. RESULTS: Based on the Chambless criteria for treatment efficacy, both standard extinction and scheduled awakenings met criteria for possibly efficacious interventions for sleep problems in children with ASD. Some positive outcomes have been reported, but there has not been enough research examining graduated extinction, faded bedtime, stimulus fading and chronotherapy to make any firm conclusions regarding treatment efficacy for children with ASD. CONCLUSIONS: Although more rigorous research is required in order for any sleep interventions for children with ASD to be considered probably efficacious or well-established, the current literature should be used to guide clinical decisions and direct research questions.

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)0.004
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Citations177
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric PsychologySame topicChild Nutrition and Feeding IssuesFrench-language works237,207