1087 Comparison of Objective and Subjective Measures in Assessing Sleep Patterns of Premature Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Premature infants exhibit unique sleep patterns, making the assessment of their sleep particularly challenging. Actigraphy and the Brief Infant Sleep Questionnaire (BISQ) are commonly used tools to evaluate infant sleep, yet comparisons between these methods remain limited in this population. The objective of this study is to determine whether significant differences exist between sleep data obtained through actigraphy and BISQ reports in premature newborns. Methods This study included 34 premature newborns (≤32 weeks of gestation) who wore actigraphy devices for three consecutive weekdays, one month after discharge from the neonatal unit. Actigraphy variables were measured for a nighttime period from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM, using the average of the three nights. Parents also completed multiple questionnaires, including the BISQ and sleep diaries to corroborate actigraphy data. Exploratory paired t-tests were conducted to examine differences in sleep duration, number of nocturnal awakenings, and wake after sleep onset (WASO) between actigraphy data and BISQ parental reports. Results Results showed significant differences for all variables. BISQ-reported sleep duration was significantly longer than actigraphy-measured sleep duration (excluding WASO), overestimating by 59.35 minutes (t(33) = 2.71, p =.01). When comparing BISQ sleep duration to actigraphy-measured total sleep time (including WASO), BISQ underestimated sleep duration by 122.06 minutes (t(33) = -6.48, p <.001). BISQ-reported number of awakenings was significantly lower compared to actigraphy, with a mean difference of 1.26 awakenings (t(33) = −3.85, p <.001). Similarly, BISQ-reported WASO was, on average, 71.40 minutes shorter than actigraphy-measured WASO (t(33) = −4.28, p <.001). Conclusion These discrepancies between BISQ parental reports and actigraphy measures could reflect the subjective nature of parental reports, which provide a generalized overview of sleep, compared to the objective data that measure sleep on few specific nights. Our results suggest that the BISQ and actigraphy may not capture the same aspects of infant sleep, emphasizing the importance of selecting the appropriate tool based on the research or clinical objective. This is particularly relevant for premature infants, whose sleep tends to be more fragmented, making precise measurements essential for understanding their unique sleep patterns. Support (if any) This study was funded by the SSHRC.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".