Is it nutrients, food items, diet quality or eating behaviours that are responsible for the association of children's diet with sleep?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both diet quality and sleep duration of children have declined in the past decades. Several studies have suggested that diet and sleep are associated; however, it is not established which aspects of the diet are responsible for this association. Is it nutrients, food items, diet quality or eating behaviours? We surveyed 2261 grade 5 children on their dietary intake and eating behaviours, and their parents on their sleep duration and sleep quality. We performed factor analysis to identify and quantify the essential factors among 57 nutrients, 132 food items and 19 eating behaviours. We considered these essential factors along with a diet quality score in multivariate regression analyses to assess their independent associations with sleep. Nutrients, food items and diet quality did not exhibit independent associations with sleep, whereas two groupings of eating behaviours did. 'Unhealthy eating habits and environments' was independently associated with sleep. For each standard deviation increase in their factor score, children had 6 min less sleep and were 12% less likely to have sleep of good quality. 'Snacking between meals and after supper' was independently associated with sleep quality. For each standard deviation increase in its factor score, children were 7% less likely to have good quality sleep. This study demonstrates that eating behaviours are responsible for the associations of diet with sleep among children. Health promotion programmes aiming to improve sleep should therefore focus on discouraging eating behaviours such as eating alone or in front of the TV, and snacking between meals and after supper.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".