A Series of Remote Melatonin Supplement Interventions for Poor Sleep: Protocol for a Feasibility Pilot Study for a Series of Personalized (N-of-1) Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Poor sleep, defined as short-duration or poor-quality sleep, is a frequently reported condition with many deleterious effects including poorer cognitive functioning, increased accidents, and poorer health. Melatonin has been shown to be an efficacious treatment to manage symptoms of poor sleep. However, the treatment effects of melatonin on sleep can vary greatly between participants. Personalized, or N-of-1, trial designs represent a method for identifying the best treatment for individual participants. Although using N-of-1 trials of melatonin to treat poor sleep is possible, the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of N-of-1 trials using melatonin are unknown. Using the National Institutes of Health Stage Model for Behavioral Intervention Development, a stage IB (intervention refinement, modification, and adaptation and pilot testing) design appeared to be needed to address these feasibility questions. OBJECTIVE: This trial series evaluates the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of a series of personalized interventions for remote delivery of melatonin dose (3 and 0.5 mg) versus placebo supplements for self-reported poor sleep among 60 participants. The goal of this study is to provide valuable information about implementing remote N-of-1 randomized controlled trials to improve poor sleep. METHODS: Participants will complete a 2-week baseline followed by six 2-week alternating intervention periods of 3 mg of melatonin, 0.5 mg of melatonin, and placebo. Participants will be randomly assigned to 2 intervention orders. The feasibility and acceptability of the personalized trial approach will be determined with participants' ratings of usability and satisfaction with the remote, personalized intervention delivery system. The effectiveness of the intervention will be measured using participants' self-reported sleep quality and duration and Fitbit tracker-measured sleep duration and efficiency. Additional measures will include ecological momentary assessment measures of fatigue, stress, pain, mood, concentration, and confidence as well as measures of participant adherence to the intervention, use of the Fitbit tracker, and survey data collection. RESULTS: As of the submission of this protocol, recruitment for this National Institutes of Health stage IB personalized trial series is approximately 78.3% complete (47/60). We expect recruitment and data collection to be finalized by June 2023. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluating the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of a series of personalized interventions of melatonin will address the longer term aim of this program of research-is integrating N-of-1 trials useful patient care? The personalized trial series results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will follow the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extension for N-of-1 trials (CENT 2015) reporting guidelines. This trial series was approved by the Northwell Health institutional review board. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05349188; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05349188. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/45313.
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 | 0.048 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.014 |
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".