Do insomnia and/or sleep disturbances predict the onset, relapse or worsening of depression in community and clinical samples of children and youth? Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Disturbed sleep represents a potentially important modifiable risk factor for the development of depression in children and youth. This protocol for a systematic review proposes to investigate whether insomnia and/or sleep disturbances predict child and youth depression in community and clinical-based samples. Methods and analysis The protocol adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. English-written, longitudinal studies that quantitatively estimated the prediction of depression by insomnia and/or sleep disturbances in individuals 5–24 years of age will be included. EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Scopus and Web of Science and grey literature will be searched from 1980 to the present. For the selection of studies, two reviewers will be involved. Data extraction will be conducted by one author and checked independently by a second author. Risk of bias will be appraised using the Research Triangle Institute Item Bank tool. Heterogeneity will be measured using the I2statistics. Meta-analysis will be carried out if ≥3 results are available and if outcome measures can be pooled. The choice between a random-effect or fixed-effect model will be based both on the I2statistics and the participant and study characteristics of the combined studies. Results of the meta-analyses will be summarised by a forest plot. Analyses will be performed in subgroups stratified by key variables defined depending on the amount and type of information retrieved. A narrative synthesis will be conducted in place of the meta-analysis should the pooling of data not be possible. Quality of evidence will be rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines. As this is a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis of published data, ethics review and approval are not required. The findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated at scientific conferences and in patient advocacy organisations. PROSPERO registration number CRD42019136729.
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 | 0.097 | 0.150 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.031 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.007 |
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".