Eating, sleeping and moving recommendations in clinical practice guidelines for paediatric depression: umbrella review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current first-line treatments for paediatric depression demonstrate mild-to-moderate effectiveness. This has spurred a growing body of literature on lifestyle recommendations pertaining to nutrition, sleep and exercise for treating paediatric depression. AIMS: Paediatric depression clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) were reviewed for quality and to catalogue recommendations on nutrition, sleep and exercise made by higher-quality CPGs. METHOD: Searches were conducted in Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science and CINAHL, and grey literature CPGs databases for relevant CPGs. Eligible CPGs with a minimum or high-quality level, as determined by the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, Second Edition instrument, were included if they were (a) paediatric; (b) CPGs, practice parameter or consensus or expert committee recommendations; (c) for depression; (d) the latest version and (e) lifestyle recommendations for nutrition, sleep or exercise. Key information extracted included author(s), language, year of publication, country, the institutional body issuing the CPG, target disorder, age group, lifestyle recommendation and the methods used to determine CPG lifestyle recommendations. RESULTS: Ten paediatric CPGs for depression with a minimum or high-quality level contained recommendations on nutrition, sleep or exercise. Lifestyle recommendations were predominately qualitative, with quantitative details only outlined in two CPGs for exercise. Most recommendations were brief general statements, with 50% lacking supporting evidence from the literature. CONCLUSIONS: Interest in lifestyle interventions for treatment in child and youth depression is growing. However, current CPG lifestyle recommendations for nutrition, sleep or exercise are based on expert opinion rather than clinical trials.
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 | 0.042 | 0.159 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".