MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2761995660 · doi:10.1093/pch/19.6.e35-121

123: A Comparison of Actigraphic and Self-Reported Sleep Timing in Adolescents

2014· article· en· W2761995660 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jamie Cassoff, Bärbel Knaüper, E Colagrosso, Reut Gruber

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsDouglas Mental Health University Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActigraphyBedtimeSleep (system call)Sleep diarySleep onsetMedicinePsychologySleep deprivationSleep onset latencyPhysical therapyClinical psychologyInsomniaPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adolescent sleep deprivation is common and has a significant negative impact on health and well-being. Pediatric health care professionals must measure sleep timing accurately in order to identify and then treat sleep deprivation in this age group. Currently, parents often respond on behalf of their child and are inaccurate in reporting their child's sleep timing. It is possible that asking the adolescent directly about their sleep patterns may yield more accurate sleep information. However, there is a lack of research evaluating how well adolescents are able to estimate their sleep timing. The current study seeks to compare adolescent self-reported and objective actigraphy estimates of bedtime and wake time in order to assess how valid adolescents are in reporting their sleep timing on the weekdays and weekends. Adolescents were recruited from a high school in Montreal and survey completion took place in classrooms during school hours. Thirty-five participants answered a four-item questionnaire pertaining to when they typically went to bed and woke up on weekdays and weekends. Sleep duration was then calculated as a function of bedtime and wake time. All participants underwent actigraphy and completed sleep logs for five consecutive weekdays. Twenty-seven of the 35 participants also underwent actigraphy and completed sleep logs on the weekend. There were significant positive correlations between actigraphy and survey data for sleep variables including weekday sleep start time (r=0.71), end time (r=0.77) and sleep duration (r=0.63), and weekend sleep start time (r=0.68) and end time (r=0.82) but not sleep duration (r=0.22). While adolescents reported sleeping for an average of 10 h on weekend nights, actiwatch data indicated that they were sleeping for only 8.8 h. Adolescents can accurately report their sleep timing on weekdays. One explanation for the non-significant correlation between actigraphy and survey weekend sleep duration data is that actigraphy sometimes interprets movement during sleep as a state of wake, thus causing a decrease in the estimation of actual sleep. In addition to asking parents about their child's sleep habits and assessing sleep objectively, health care professionals should consider asking adolescents directly about their sleep timing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicSleep and related disorders→French-language works237,207→