MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975950649 · doi:10.1051/medsci/20092510782

Trouble comportemental en sommeil paradoxal et maladies neurodégénératives

2009· article· fr· W1975950649 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐François Gagnon, Ronald B. Postuma, Jacques Montplaisir

Bibliographic record

Venuemédecine/sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMontreal General HospitalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroDArtPsychologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

NOUVELLE> Il existe une phase du sommeil caractérisée par une atonie musculaire, par la présence de mouvements oculaires rapides et par une activité électroencéphalographique (EEG) semblable à celle de l'éveil : c'est le sommeil paradoxal (SP).La paralysie qui caractérise le SP permet l'expression de l'activité onirique sans interrompre le déroulement du sommeil.Dès les années 1960, Michel Jouvet et ses collaborateurs ont observé chez le chat que des lésions bilatérales de régions voisines du locus coeruleus produisaient un SP sans atonie musculaire et permettaient ainsi l'observation des comportements oniriques [1].Cependant, ce n'est qu'en 1986 que Carlos Schenck et ses collaborateurs ont décrit, chez l'humain, l'existence d'une parasomnie caractérisée par une perte partielle ou complète de l'atonie musculaire du SP et l'apparition de comportements souvent complexes et indésirables (comme parler, frapper, sauter hors du lit, rire, injurier…) au cours du SP, dont l'expression semble étroitement associée à la mise en acte du contenu de l'activité onirique qui l'accompagne [2].Ils ont nommé cet état le trouble comportemental en sommeil paradoxal (TCSP) ou rapid-eye-movement sleep behaviour disorder (RBD).

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemédecine/sciencesSame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207