The relationship between machine-learning-derived sleep parameters and behavior problems in 3- and 5-year-old children: results from the CHILD Cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Machine learning (ML) may provide insights into the underlying sleep stages of accelerometer-assessed sleep duration. We examined associations between ML-sleep patterns and behavior problems among preschool children. METHODS: Children from the CHILD Cohort Edmonton site with actigraphy and behavior data at 3-years (n = 330) and 5-years (n = 304) were included. Parent-reported behavior problems were assessed by the Child Behavior Checklist. The Hidden Markov Model (HMM) classification method was used for ML analysis of the accelerometer sleep period. The average time each participant spent in each HMM-derived sleep state was expressed in hours per day. We analyzed associations between sleep and behavior problems stratified by children with and without sleep-disordered breathing (SDB). RESULTS: Four hidden sleep states were identified at 3 years and six hidden sleep states at 5 years using HMM. The first sleep state identified for both ages (HMM-0) had zero counts (no movement). The remaining hidden states were merged together (HMM-mov). Children spent an average of 8.2 ± 1.2 h/day in HMM-0 and 2.6 ± 0.8 h/day in HMM-mov at 3 years. At age 5, children spent an average of 8.2 ± 0.9 h/day in HMM-0 and 1.9 ± 0.7 h/day in HMM-mov. Among SDB children, each hour in HMM-0 was associated with 0.79-point reduced externalizing behavior problems (95% CI -1.4, -0.12; p < 0.05), and a 1.27-point lower internalizing behavior problems (95% CI -2.02, -0.53; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: ML-sleep states were not associated with behavior problems in the general population of children. Children with SDB who had greater sleep duration without movement had lower behavioral problems. The ML-sleep states require validation with polysomnography.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".