Review: Long-term effectiveness of nondrug treatments for sleep problems in young children is more evident
Bibliographic record
Abstract
TherapeuticsSeptember 1, 2000Review: Long-term effectiveness of nondrug treatments for sleep problems in young children is more evidentKlaus Minde, MDKlaus Minde, MDThe Montreal Children’s Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (K.M.)Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/ACPJC-2000-133-2-061 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Source CitationRamchandani P, Wiggs L, Webb V, Stores G. A systematic review of treatments for settling problems and night waking in young children. BMJ. 2000 Jan 22;320:209-13. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10642226References1 Kopferschmitt J, Meyer P, Jaege A, Mantz JM, Roos M. Sleep disorders and use of psychotropic drugs in 6-year-old children. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 1992;40:467-71. Google Scholar2 Mindell JA. Empirically supported treatments in pediatric psychology: bedtime refusal and night wakings in young children. J Pediatr Psychol. 1999; 24:465-81. Google Scholar3 Minde K, Popiel K, Leos N, et al. The evaluation and treatment of sleep disturbances in young children. J Child Psychol Psychiat. 1993;34:521-33. Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: The Montreal Children’s Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (K.M.) PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails September 1, 2000Volume 133, Issue 2Page: 61KeywordsBehaviorChild healthChild psychiatryChildrenDatabasesDiazepamDrugsGeographic areasInfantsInformation storage and retrievalPopulation statisticsPsychologySleepSystematic reviews ePublished: 9 March 2020 Issue Published: September 1, 2000 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2000 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.008 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| 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) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".