Melatonergic agents influence the sleep-wake and circadian rhythms in healthy and psychiatric participants: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exogenous melatonergic agents are widely used to treat insomnia and sleep disturbance. Several studies have shown that they might also modulate circadian rhythms. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize current knowledge about the effects of melatonin supplements and melatonin agonists on the sleep-wake cycle as well as on the circadian rhythm of melatonin in healthy participants and in patients with psychiatric disorders. The following electronic databases were searched: EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library. Of the 12,719 articles, we finally selected 30 studies including 1294 healthy participants and 8 studies including 687 patients with psychiatric disorders. Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Using meta-ANOVA, studies on healthy participants showed advancing effects of melatonergic supplements and agonists on sleep-wake cycle according to dosing time and dosage, despite the fact that the original individual melatonin rhythm was within a normal range (fixed effect model standardized mean difference [95% Confidence Interval] = -0.639[-0.968 to -0.310]). In a limited number of randomized controlled trials with psychiatric patients, the findings seemed similar to those with healthy participants, despite the psychiatric disorders and treatment related factors affecting circadian rhythms. Given the unmet clinical need for evidence-based treatments to correct circadian rhythms in psychiatric disorders, efficacy of melatonergic agents seen in healthy participants, and similarity of findings among psychiatric patients, large scale, well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to test efficacy on circadian parameters in psychiatric disorders.
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 | 0.013 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".