A call to action for expanded sleep research in pediatric oncology: A position paper on behalf of the International Psycho‐Oncology Society Pediatrics Special Interest Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sleep and circadian rhythms are closely related to physical and psychosocial well-being. However, sleep and circadian rhythm disruptions are often overlooked in children with cancer, as they are frequently considered temporary side effects of therapy that resolve when treatment ends. Yet, evidence from adult oncology suggests a bidirectional relationship wherein cancer and its treatment disrupt sleep and circadian rhythms, which are associated with negative health outcomes such as poor immune functioning and lower survival rates. A growing body of research demonstrates that sleep problems are prevalent among children with cancer and can persist into survivorship. However, medical and psychosocial outcomes of poor sleep and circadian rhythmicity have not been explored in this context. It is essential to increase our understanding because sleep and circadian rhythms are vital components of health and quality of life. In children without cancer, sleep and circadian disturbances respond well to intervention, suggesting that they may also be modifiable in children with cancer. We present this paper as a call to (a) incorporate sleep or circadian rhythm assessment into pediatric cancer clinical trials, (b) address gaps in understanding the bidirectional relationship between sleep or circadian rhythms and health throughout the cancer trajectory, and (c) integrate sleep and circadian science into oncologic treatment.
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 | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
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".