MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3085810278 · doi:10.1177/1087054720953897

The Longitudinal Relationship Between Screen Time, Sleep and a Diagnosis of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Childhood

2020· article· en· W3085810278 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Birgit Levelink, Marjolein van der Vlegel, Monique Mommers, Jessica S. Gubbels, Edward Dompeling, Frans Feron, Dorothea M. C. B. van Zeben-van der Aa, Petra P. M. Hurks, Carel Thijs

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Attention Disorders · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPhoenix FoundationZonMwTriodos Foundation
KeywordsPsychologyAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderAttention deficitAttention deficit disorderLongitudinal studySleep (system call)Developmental psychologyClinical psychologyAudiologyPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate longitudinal associations between recreational screen time and sleep in early childhood, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) at age 8 to 10 years. METHOD: Questionnaires from 2,768 mother-child pairs from the Dutch KOALA Birth Cohort Study were used. General estimating equation logistic regression analyses examined associations between screen time and sleep at age 2, 4, and 6, and ADHD at age 8 to 10. Linear regression analysis examined associations between television time, sleep and CBCL/2-3 scores at age 2. RESULTS: Longitudinally, neither screen time nor sleep were associated with ADHD. Cross-sectionally, CBCL/2-3 externalizing symptom scores increased by 0.03 with every hour television time (95% CI 0.002-0.05) and increased by 0.02 per hour of less sleep (95% CI -0.03--0.01). CONCLUSION: Despite an association with externalizing symptoms at age 2, screen time and sleep in early childhood were not associated with ADHD. Carefulness is warranted when extrapolating cross-sectional associations at early age to an ADHD diagnosis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations47
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Attention DisordersSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207