MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2608492849 · doi:10.1093/sleepj/zsx050.037

0038 IS EARLY SLEEP CONSOLIDATION ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENTAL OUTCOMES?

2017· article· en· W2608492849 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marie‐Hélène Pennestri, Christine Laganière, Andrée–Anne Bouvette–Turcot, Marie E. Steiner, Michael Meaney, Hélène Gaudreau

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityDouglas Mental Health University InstituteMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychomotor learningPediatricsMedicineGross motor skillPopulationChild developmentSleep (system call)PsychologyMotor skillCognitionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consolidated sleep is widely considered a developmental milestone that is achieved at about 6 months. However, this typical developmental timeline is not always reached, leading to behavioral interventions at an increasingly younger age. Although the beneficial effects of sufficient nocturnal sleep duration are well documented, the specific contribution of a rapid sleep consolidation on infants’ development remains unclear. The aims of the present study are 1) to characterize the proportion of infants sleeping through the night at 6 months in a healthy population and 2) to determine the specific contribution of early sleep consolidation on development. These data (n=417 mother-child dyads) were drawn from the Maternal Adversity, Vulnerability and neurodevelopment longitudinal study (MAVAN). A cut-off of 6 hours of consecutive sleep was used to determine if infants were sleeping or not through the night (maternal report, 6 months). Mental and psychomotor developmental indexes (Bayley, 6–36 months) and feeding method (breastfeeding or not at 6 months) were compared between infants sleeping or not through the night, with t-tests or chi-squares. While 260 (62.4%) of infants were sleeping through the night at 6 months, 157 (37.6%) were not. Both groups did not differ in terms of mental and psychomotor development, neither at 6 nor at 36 months (p>0.05). However, infants sleeping through the night were more likely not to be breastfed at 6 months (44% vs 20%, p<0.0001). Sleeping through the night in early infancy is generally considered a gold standard in North America. However, the interpretation of night awakenings as problematic in early development is not unanimous in parents and professionals. Considering that no differences in both mental and psychomotor development were observed between healthy infants sleeping or not through the night at 6 months, and given the well-known benefits of breastfeeding, one may have more nuanced expectations regarding early sleep consolidation. Supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research,Ludmer Centre for Neuroinformatics and Mental Health and McGill University.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207