A paediatric group neglected in research: A systematic review on the sleep patterns, chronotype, latitude and ethnicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents a systematic review design aiming to explore how chronotype features are assessed in school-aged children (ages 4-11) and how chronotype is related to sleep habits, household dynamics, ethnicity, and geographical latitude. The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Thirty-one studies were identified as eligible and reviewed by three independent researchers. The main findings indicate that chronotype is often under-assessed in school-aged children, with both professionals and parents reporting limited knowledge of children's sleep patterns. Additionally, there is a lack of information in the literature regarding how chronotype, sleep patterns, and vigilance are influenced by latitude and sociocultural factors. Most research on the relationship among the aforementioned variables is focused on adults rather than children. Furthermore, the methods for measuring sleep quality and chronotype were found to be inconsistent, with chronotype and sleep quality often used interchangeably. Based on these findings, further research is needed to explore how chronotype, sleep habits, and cultural or latitudinal factors might predict mental health and cognitive development in children. In terms of practical implications, there is an urgent need for re-education of parents on establishing healthy sleep and wake routines for their children.
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 | 0.014 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".