Restless Legs Syndrome in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence of restless legs syndrome (RLS) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and the relationship between RLS and clinical/laboratory findings of COPD. METHODS: One hundred and thirty-four COPD patients without secondary causes of RLS were included. Thirty-nine (29.1%) patients were diagnosed with RLS and classified as Group 1. The control group consisted of 65 age-matched COPD patients without RLS. Group 1 was divided into subgroups according to the Johns Hopkins Severity (JHS) scale. Patients with a score of 0, 1, or 2 were classified as JHS 0-2 and those with a score of 3 as JHS 3. Group 1 and the control group and subgroups were compared for clinical and laboratory characteristics. RESULTS: We found that the duration of COPD was longer and that airway obstruction, hypercapnia, and hypoxia were more evident in patients with RLS than those without. Similar differences were also detected between JHS subgroups 3 (more severe) and 0-2. Polyneuropathy frequency was significantly higher in Group 1 compared to controls. However, Group 1 subgroups showed a similar frequency of polyneuropathy. In a multivariate analysis, hypercapnia made a significant independent contribution to both JHS 0-2 and JHS 3 patients when RLS severity was set as the dependent variable. Polyneuropathy and the duration of COPD were significant independent variables for patients in the JHS 3 subgroup. Polyneuropathy was the strongest predictor for the JHS 3 patients. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that RLS is frequent in COPD, particularly in patients with severe hypoxemia/hypercapnia and in late stages of the disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".