BRIEF COMMUNICATION.. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Children, Seasonal Photoperiods, Nocturnal Movements and Diurnal Agitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".