Impact of Sleep Restriction on Neurobehavioral Functioning of Children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess the cumulative impact of 1 hour of nightly sleep restriction over the course of 6 nights on the neurobehavioral functioning (NBF) of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and healthy controls. DESIGN: Following 6 nights of actigraphic monitoring of sleep to determine baseline sleep duration, children were asked to restrict sleep duration by 1 hour for 6 consecutive nights. NBF was assessed at baseline (Day 6) and following sleep manipulation (Day 12). SETTING: A quiet location within their home environments. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-three children (11 ADHD, 32 Controls, mean age = 8.7 years, SD = 1.3) between the ages of 7 and 11 years. INTERVENTIONS: NA. MEASUREMENTS: Sleep was monitored using actigraphy. In addition, parents were asked to complete nightly sleep logs. Sleepiness was evaluated using a questionnaire. The Conners' Continuous Performance Test (CPT) was used to assess NBF. RESULTS: Restricted sleep led to poorer CPT scores on two-thirds of CPT outcome measures in both healthy controls and children with ADHD. The performance of children with ADHD following sleep restriction deteriorated from subclinical levels to the clinical range of inattention on two-thirds of CPT outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate sleep restriction leads to a detectable negative impact on the NBF of children with ADHD and healthy controls, leading to a clinical level of impairment in children with ADHD.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".