MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099543535

BRIEF COMMUNICATION.. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Children, Seasonal Photoperiods, Nocturnal Movements and Diurnal Agitation

2010· article· en· W7099543535 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Science and Natural History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNocturnalAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderSignificant differenceCircadian rhythmSleep disorderDiurnal temperature variation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The main purpose of this study was to verify that the shortening photoperiods of winter contribute to increasing the nocturnal and diurnal agitation of children with ADHD and that lengthening photoperiods diminish it. Method: To verify this hypothesis we chose a location where daylight times drop drastically in the fall: Edmonton (Canada). The study’s sample was fifteen children, varying in age from 7 to 9 years (M=8.13 years old). The participants were divided into two clinical groups and one control group. The first clinical group was made up of five (n=5) children diagnosed with ADHD and treated with psychostimulants. The second clinical group was made up of five (n=5) children with ADHD not treated with psychostimulants. The control group was composed of five (n=5) children showing no signs of ADHD or psychopathologies. The intensity of diurnal agitation linked to ADHD was evaluated by teachers using the French version questionnaire (SWAN-F) at T1 (first day of experiment). The children’s nocturnal movements were evaluated using actimetry. Their sleep quality was measured with a sleep agenda. These last two measurements were carried out for five consecutive days when the length of the photoperiod was at its shortest (end of December). The same procedures were repeated at the end of June (T2), when the photoperiod was at its maximum. Results: The principal results support the study’s hypothesis and show a significant baseline difference (p=0.008) between the nocturnal motor movements of the ADHD children and those of the control children. Conclusions: According to these results, this type of research should be reproduced in other Nordic

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.215 · 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.

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHistory of Science and Natural HistoryFrench-language works237,207