Short persistent sleep duration is associated with poor receptive vocabulary performance in middle childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine whether short sleep duration is associated with poor receptive vocabulary at age 10 years. In the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development, parents reported their children's nocturnal sleep duration annually from ages 2.5 to 10 years, and children were assessed for receptive vocabulary using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R) at ages 4 and 10 years. Groups with distinct nocturnal sleep duration trajectories were identified and the relationships between sleep trajectories and poor PPVT-R performance were characterized. In all, 1192 children with available sleep duration and PPVT-R data participated in this epidemiological study. We identified four longitudinal nocturnal sleep trajectories: short persistent sleepers (n = 72, 6.0%), short increasing sleepers (n = 47, 3.9%), 10-h sleepers (n = 628, 52.7%) and 11-h sleepers (n = 445, 37.3%). In all, 14.8% of the children showed poor PPVT-R performance at age 10 years. Nocturnal sleep trajectories and poor PPVT-R performance at age 10 were associated significantly (P = 0.003). After adjusting for baseline receptive vocabulary performance at age 4 and other potential confounding variables, logistic regression analyses suggest that, compared to 11-h sleepers, the odds ratio of presenting poor receptive vocabulary at age 10 was 2.67 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.24-5.74, P = 0.012] for short persistent sleepers and 1.66 (95% CI: 1.06-2.59, P = 0.026) for 10-h sleepers. These results corroborate previous findings in early childhood, and indicate that short sleep duration is associated with poor receptive vocabulary during middle childhood.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".