Common Childhood Sleep Problems and Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sleep insufficiency and disturbances affect the physical, cognitive, and emotional well-being of children. OBJECTIVE: To perform a narrative review on common sleep problems and disorders encountered in primary care for children and adolescents. METHODS: A search of English literature in the Pubmed and Google Scholar databases published from 1 January 2000 till 31 October 2021 was conducted with the keywords "sleep problem" or "sleep disorder" and "child" or "adolescent". Findings in the relevant articles and cross-references were compiled. RESULTS: Sleep duration and habits of children vary widely across countries with different cultural backgrounds. There is robust evidence to support the promotion of positive bedtime routines and sleep hygiene as prevention and management of sleep problems. 15-70% of parents reported their children having sleep problems or disturbances. Common sleep complaints include difficulty in initiation or maintenance of sleep, abnormal behaviors or movements, snoring or abnormal breathing, and excessive daytime sleepiness. Comprehensive sleep history and a sleep diary are the first steps for evaluation. Home video and actigraphy may be used as preliminary tools to confirm the history. Referrals to a sleep specialist for polysomnography and other tests are needed, if suspecting specific sleep disorders, such as obstructive sleep apnea and narcolepsy, needs timely intervention. Common sleep disorders in different age groups encountered in primary care are reviewed with clinical features, indications for evaluation, and treatment options summarized. CONCLUSION: Screening for sleep problems shall be an integral part of each child's health care visit. It is important to evaluate the impact of common sleep problems and identify specific sleep disorders for early intervention to prevent long-term adverse 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".