MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385147018 · doi:10.1093/ageing/afad104.088

1625 MELATONIN MODESTLY IMPROVES SLEEP EFFICIENCY IN PATIENTS WITH NEUROCOGNITIVE DISORDERS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

2023· review· en· W4385147018 on OpenAlexaff
Nathalie Germain, Dounia Rouabhia, Marika Morin, Patrick Archambault

Bibliographic record

VenueAge and Ageing · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale-NationaleCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanUniversité LavalCentre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de Chaudière-Appalaches
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMelatoninMedicineNeurocognitivePlaceboMeta-analysisMelatonin receptorRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineSleep disorderPhysical therapyPsychiatryInsomniaCognitionAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction The administration of melatonin and melatonin receptor agonists (MRA) may result in a small improvement in sleep quality among middle-aged and older adults living with neurocognitive disorders, but debate remains as to whether effects are clinically meaningful. The purpose of this PROSPERO-registered systematic review and meta-analysis (CRD42022373972) was to synthesise evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of melatonin or MRA against placebo and other interventions for the treatment of sleep disturbances in adults with neurocognitive disorders. Method CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL and PsycINFO were systematically searched on November 4th 2022, examining the effect of melatonin and MRA on sleep efficiency: the percentage of time spent asleep while in bed. Results were analysed using Review Manager 5.4. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 and the certainty of evidence was assessed with the GRADE framework. Results Among the 1,579 references evaluated, 13 RCTs were selected, corresponding to 16 studies, none including MRA, with a total of 592 patients. Compared with placebo, bright light treatment, or clonazepam, sleep efficiency significantly improved with melatonin administration (MD = 2.85, 95% CI: 0.88 to 4.81, p = 0.004). In subgroup analyses, only low doses of melatonin (< 5 mg) yielded a statistically significant improvement to sleep efficiency (MD = 3.81, 95% CI: 1.13 to 6.49, p = 0.005, I2 = 34%), and melatonin administration statistically significantly improved sleep efficiency in patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment, Parkinson's Disease, or Multiple Sclerosis (MD = 3.27, 95% CI: 0.11 to 6.43, p = 0.04, I2 = 41%), but not patients with Alzheimer's Disease. We found the overall quality of evidence to be moderate according to GRADE. Conclusion Melatonin may modestly ameliorate sleep quality in patients with neurocognitive disorders by improving sleep efficiency, which may be clinically significant to patients and those who care for them.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.031
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAge and AgeingSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207