Sleep problems in children with cerebral palsy and their parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To describe: (1) the frequency and types of sleep problems, (2) parent-rated satisfaction with their child's and their own sleep, and (3) child factors related to the occurrence of sleep problems in children with cerebral palsy (CP) and their parents. The secondary objective was to compare the sleep outcomes of children with CP with those from typically developing children and their parents. METHOD: The Sleep section of the 24-hour activity checklist was used to assess the sleep of children with CP and their parents and the sleep of typically developing children and their parents. RESULTS: The sleep outcomes of 90 children with CP (median age 5y, range 0-11y, 53 males, 37 females, 84.4% ambulatory) and 157 typically developing peers (median age 5y, range 0-12y; 79 males, 78 females) and their parents were collected. Children with CP were more likely to have a sleep problem than typically developing children. Non-ambulatory children with CP were more severely affected by sleep problems than ambulatory children. The parents of non-ambulatory children were less satisfied about their child's and their own sleep. Waking up during the night, pain/discomfort in bed, and daytime fatigue were more common in children with CP and more prevalent in children who were non-ambulatory. INTERPRETATION: These findings highlight the need to integrate sleep assessment into routine paediatric health care practice. What this paper adds Children with cerebral palsy (CP) are more likely to have a sleep problem than typically developing peers. Non-ambulatory children with CP are more severely affected by sleep problems. One-third of parents of children with CP report feeling sleep-deprived often or always compared to a quarter of parents of typically developing children.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".