MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2184081088 · doi:10.1080/15402002.2015.1065408

Sleep in Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders: How Are Measures of Parent Report and Actigraphy Related and Affected by Sleep Education?

2015· article· en· W2184081088 on OpenAlexaff
Olivia J. Veatch, Ann Reynolds, Terry Katz, Shelly K. Weiss, Alvin Loh, Lily Wang, Beth A. Malow

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Sleep Medicine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSurrey Place CentreSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsActigraphyBedtimeAutismSleep (system call)Sleep onsetInsomniaAutism spectrum disorderPsychologyPopulationSleep disorderAudiologyClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sleep disturbance is common in children with autism, resulting in a great need for effective treatments. To evaluate treatments for sleep disturbance in this population, it is critical to understand the relationship between measures of sleep captured by parent report and objective measures. The Children's Sleep Habits Questionnaire (CSHQ) and actigraphy-measured data from 80 children with autism and sleep-onset delay were evaluated. Reported problems with sleep-onset delay were concurrent with sleep duration problems in 66% of children, night wakings in 72% of children, and bedtime resistance in 66% of children; 38% of children were reported to have problems with all CSHQ insomnia domains. Actigraphy-measured sleep duration was correlated with estimates using CSHQ-reported bed and wake times.

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)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations51
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral Sleep MedicineSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207