The relationship between sleep and depression and bipolar disorder in children and young people
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sleep difficulties are often reported in practice, and are part of the diagnostic criteria for depression and bipolar disorder. AIMS: To inform the understanding of the relationship between sleep and both depression and bipolar disorder. METHOD: We conducted a narrative literature review of affective disorders and sleep difficulties in children and young people. RESULTS: Specific sleep disorders, such as parasomnias, narcolepsy and sleep-related movement disorders, are associated with depression, whereas insomnia, obstructive sleep apnoea and circadian rhythm disorders are associated with both depression and bipolar disorder in children and young people. Conversely, children and young people with depression can present with a number of sleep difficulties, and these are associated with higher depression severity and greater fatigue, suicidal ideation, physical complaints, pain and decreased concentration. Sleep disturbances among adolescents with bipolar disorder can affect the severity of depressive and manic symptoms, are a poor prognostic indicator and have been associated with social and academic impairment. Antidepressants and antipsychotics can directly affect sleep architecture, which clinicians need to be aware of. Non-pharmacological interventions for sleep problems could prevent and/or minimise the risk of relapse in affective disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Sleep difficulties can occur before, during and after an episode of depression or bipolar disorder, and have a higher prevalence in affective disorders compared with the general population. A multi-modal approach would include the treatment of both the affective and specific sleep disorder. Further research is needed in this field to understand the impact of combined interventions on clinical outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".