Systematic review of the relationships between sleep duration and health indicators in school-aged children and youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this systematic review was to examine the relationships between objectively and subjectively measured sleep duration and various health indicators in children and youth aged 5-17 years. Online databases were searched in January 2015 with no date or study design limits. Included studies were peer-reviewed and met the a priori-determined population (apparently healthy children and youth aged 5-17 years), intervention/exposure/comparator (various sleep durations), and outcome (adiposity, emotional regulation, cognition/academic achievement, quality of life/well-being, harms/injuries, and cardiometabolic biomarkers) criteria. Because of high levels of heterogeneity across studies, narrative syntheses were employed. A total of 141 articles (110 unique samples), including 592 215 unique participants from 40 different countries, met inclusion criteria. Overall, longer sleep duration was associated with lower adiposity indicators, better emotional regulation, better academic achievement, and better quality of life/well-being. The evidence was mixed and/or limited for the association between sleep duration and cognition, harms/injuries, and cardiometabolic biomarkers. The quality of evidence ranged from very low to high across study designs and health indicators. In conclusion, we confirmed previous investigations showing that shorter sleep duration is associated with adverse physical and mental health outcomes. However, the available evidence relies heavily on cross-sectional studies using self-reported sleep. To better inform contemporary sleep recommendations, there is a need for sleep restriction/extension interventions that examine the changes in different outcome measures against various amounts of objectively measured sleep to have a better sense of dose-response relationships.
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 | 0.008 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".