MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410501057 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsaf090.1088

1088 Relationship Between Pacifier Use and Infant Sleep Metrics Obtained with Auto-videosomonography

2025· article· en· W4410501057 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Maristella Lucchini, Liat Tikotzky, Sarah E. Berger, Natalie Barnett

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPacifierSleep (system call)PediatricsMedicinePsychologyBreastfeedingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Pacifiers are routinely utilized among infants worldwide, yet their potential influence on infant sleep remains underexplored. Existing research offers conflicting insights, with one large-scale study finding no differences in sleep outcomes between pacifier users (PU) and non-users (nPU); however, this study relied on parent-reported sleep metrics, which are subject to bias. Other studies have utilized objective polysomnography measures, but these have been limited by small sample sizes and only one night of data per child in an unfamiliar environment, restricting their generalizability. To address these gaps, this study leverages a large sample and objective sleep metrics obtained through autovideosomnography, providing a novel and robust approach to understanding the relationship between pacifier use and infant sleep. Methods Among Nanit users, we recruited 243 families of infants 4-7 months. We obtained the following sleep metrics for each infant via autovideosmonography (5-14 nights): nighttime sleep duration (NSD), nighttime awakenings (NA), parental visits (PV). Additionally, we obtained parental reports on NDS and NA with the BISQ-R. We ran linear regressions with sleep metrics as outcomes, use of pacifier based on parental report as predictor and infant’s age as covariate. Results Forty-one percent of infants were PU. Compared to nPU, PU had more PV (𝛽=1.4±0.3,p< 0.001). PU were also more likely to sleep in a bassinet, rather than in a crib, compared to nPU (PU 20% vs nPU 6%). However, no differences were found between the groups in NSD and NA both for objective and parent-report metrics. Moreover, there was no difference in age, proportion of infants who fell asleep on their own or being held/rocked, or with an adult in the room without being held/rocked. Conclusion This is the first study to analyze the relationship between pacifier use at night and objective infant sleep metrics. While results from parental reports show no differences, as described by previous literature, objective sleep metrics show more parental interventions for infants using pacifiers, despite having the same nighttime sleep duration and awakenings, and mostly similar sleep ecology and parental involvement at bedtime. Support (if any)

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.778

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleepFrench-language works237,207