A systematic review of sleep in hospitalized pediatric cancer patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review was to describe the occurrence of sleep disruptions in pediatric cancer patients and to identify and discuss the factors related to the hospital sleep environment that may be associated with disturbed sleep. METHODS: A total of 108 articles were located in five databases (PubMed, PsychINFO, Medline, CancerLit, and Google Scholar), and seven met our inclusion criteria and formed the basis of this review. RESULTS: Participants ranged from 1 to 18 years (n = 147). Data from objective and subjective assessments of sleep showed that child sleep was disrupted in the hospital when compared to previously established age-related norms. Noise, light levels, and staff room interruptions were associated with decreased total sleep minutes and increased nighttime awakenings. Methodological limitations of the current research as well as potential directions for future research are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Investigations into the sources of increased sleep difficulties can be used to inform hospital procedures to create a more supportive sleep environment and more effective screening tools for patients who may be at greater risk for sleep difficulties. This may help to minimize the role that hospitalization plays in precipitating and perpetuating chronic sleep disturbances in pediatric cancer patients. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".