The Associations between the Homeostatic and Circadian Sleep Processes and the Neurobehavioral Functioning (NBF) of Individuals with ADHD—A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the present review was to systematically examine associations between perturbations of the homeostatic or circadian sleep processes and the neurobehavioral functioning (NBF) of individuals with ADHD. Electronic databases were searched for articles published between December 2013 and March 2023. Studies were included if they used objective measures of NBF, used objective or subjective measures of sleep, and focused on individuals with ADHD. Ten studies met these inclusion criteria. Of these, eight studies found perturbations in the interplay between NBF and Process S or Process C, and three studies did not. The quality of the studies was degraded because they failed to address key factors that affect the sleep processes and by the presence of methodological weaknesses. Our review suggests that homeostatic and circadian sleep processes are associated with NBF in individuals with ADHD. However, to confirm the validity of this conclusion, future studies should examine or control for confounders and utilize experimental designs that allow causality to be inferred.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".