MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1573371752 · doi:10.1177/1550059415603050

Quantitative EEG of Rapid-Eye-Movement Sleep

2015· article· en· W1573371752 on OpenAlexaff
Pauline Brayet, Dominique Petit, Birgit Frauscher, Jean‐François Gagnon, Nadia Gosselin, Katia Gagnon, Isabelle Rouleau, Jacques Montplaisir

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical EEG and Neuroscience · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Sleep & Circadian NetworkHôpital Notre-DameUniversité de MontréalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyWakefulnessBasal forebrainRapid eye movement sleepAudiologyPsychologyK-complexSleep (system call)Non-rapid eye movement sleepSleep StagesEye movementSlow-wave sleepNeurosciencePolysomnographyMedicineCholinergic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The basal forebrain cholinergic system, which is impaired in early Alzheimer's disease, is more crucial for the activation of rapid-eye-movement (REM) sleep electroencephalogram (EEG) than it is for wakefulness. Quantitative EEG from REM sleep might thus provide an earlier and more accurate marker of the development of Alzheimer's disease in subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) subjects than that from wakefulness. To assess the superiority of the REM sleep EEG as a screening tool for preclinical Alzheimer's disease, 22 subjects with amnestic MCI (a-MCI; 63.9±7.7 years), 10 subjects with nonamnestic MCI (na-MCI; 64.1±4.5 years) and 32 controls (63.7±6.6 years) participated in the study. Spectral analyses of the waking EEG and REM sleep EEG were performed and the [(delta+theta)/(alpha+beta)] ratio was used to assess between-group differences in EEG slowing. The a-MCI subgroup showed EEG slowing in frontal lateral regions compared to both na-MCI and control groups. This EEG slowing was present in wakefulness (compared to controls) but was much more prominent in REM sleep. Moreover, the comparison between amnestic and nonamnestic subjects was found significant only for the REM sleep EEG. There was no difference in EEG power ratio between na-MCI and controls for any of the 7 cortical regions studied. These findings demonstrate the superiority of the REM sleep EEG in the discrimination between a-MCI and both na-MCI and control subjects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.297
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.166 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations82
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical EEG and NeuroscienceSame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207