Predictors of Impaired Daytime Sleep and Wakefulness in Patients With Parkinson Disease Treated With Older (Ergot) vs Newer (Nonergot) Dopamine Agonists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with Parkinson disease (PD) treated with the nonergot dopamine agonists pramipexole dihydrochloride and ropinirole hydrochloride have been reported to have sleep attacks without warning. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic evaluation of excessive daytime sleepiness using standard polysomnographic techniques. DESIGN: Two overnight studies and daytime sleep tests were performed on a prospective sample. Pathologic daytime sleep latency was indexed by a mean Multiple Sleep Latency Test score of no greater than 5 minutes or a mean Maintenance of Wakefulness Test latency of no greater than 20 minutes. PATIENTS AND SETTING: Eighty nondemented, independent PD patients treated with dopamine agonists at the Toronto Western Hospital Sleep Research Unit, Toronto, Ontario. RESULTS: Patients treated with pramipexole dihydrochloride (n = 29), ropinirole (n = 28), or bromocriptine mesylate or pergolide mesylate (n = 23) did not differ with respect to mean Multiple Sleep Latency Test scores (overall, 12.1 minutes [SD, 5.1 minutes], F(2,77) = 0.11; P =.90) or mean Maintenance of Wakefulness Test latencies (overall, 26.7 minutes [SD, 5.4 minutes]; F(2,77) = 1.1; P =.29). Fifteen patients (18.8%) exhibited pathologic daytime sleep latencies. The main risk factor associated with pathologic daytime sleep latency was high levodopa dosage equivalents (>867.5 mg; odds ratio, 4.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-13.7). Subjective accounts of daytime sleep and wakefulness, as indexed by scores on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, were not related to impaired daytime sleepiness or wakefulness (chi(2)(1) [n = 80], 0.13; P =.72). CONCLUSIONS: Total dopaminergic drug dose rather than the specific dopamine agonist used is the best predictor of daytime sleepiness in PD patients receiving dopamine agonist therapy. Physicians concerned with daytime hypersomnolence in PD patients treated with dopamine agonists and receiving high levodopa dosage equivalents should consider polysomnographic monitoring for impaired daytime sleep latency.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".