Concordance of actigraphy with polysomnography in children with and without attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study sought to: (1) compare actigraphy-derived estimated sleep variables to the same variables based on the gold-standard of sleep assessment, polysomnography; (2) examine whether the correlations between the measures differ between children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and typically developing children; and (3) determine whether these correlations are altered when children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder are treated with medication. Participants (24 attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; 24 typically developing), aged 6-12 years, completed a 1-week baseline assessment of typical sleep and daytime functioning. Following the baseline week, participants in the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder group completed a 4-week blinded randomized control trial of methylphenidate hydrochloride, including a 2-week placebo and 2-week methylphenidate hydrochloride treatment period. At the end of each observation (typically developing: baseline; attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: baseline, placebo and methylphenidate hydrochloride treatment), all participants were invited to a sleep research laboratory, where overnight polysomnography and actigraphy were recorded concurrently. Findings from intra-class correlations and Bland-Altman plots were consistent. Actigraphy was found to provide good estimates (e.g. intra-class correlations >0.61) of polysomnography results for sleep duration for all groups and conditions, as well as for sleep-onset latency and sleep efficiency for the typically developing group and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder group while on medication, but not for the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder group during baseline or placebo. Based on the Bland-Altman plots, actigraphy tended to underestimate for sleep duration (8.6-18.5 min), sleep efficiency (5.6-9.3%) and sleep-onset latency, except for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder during placebo in which actigraphy overestimated (-2.1 to 6.3 min). The results of the current study highlight the importance of utilizing a multimodal approach to sleep assessment in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".