MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988306312 · doi:10.1002/ana.21631

Selective enhancement of rapid eye movement sleep by deep brain stimulation of the human pons

2009· article· en· W1988306312 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Lim, Elena Moro, Andrés M. Lozano, Clement Hamani, Jonathan O. Dostrovsky, William D. Hutchison, Anthony E. Lang, Richard Wennberg, Brian J. Murray

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Neurology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsMuscular Dystrophy CanadaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPedunculopontine nucleusDeep brain stimulationRapid eye movement sleepPedunculopontine Tegmental NucleusPonsEye movementNeurosciencePolysomnographySleep (system call)TegmentumSlow-wave sleepSleep onsetNon-rapid eye movement sleepStimulationNeuroscience of sleepPsychologyMedicineMidbrainNucleusElectroencephalographyCentral nervous systemParkinson's diseaseInternal medicineInsomniaPsychiatryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Animal studies suggest that rapid eye movement (REM) sleep is governed by the interaction of REM-promoting and REM-inhibiting nuclei in the pontomesencephalic tegmentum. The pedunculopontine nucleus is proposed to be REM promoting. Using polysomnography, we studied sleep in five parkinsonian patients undergoing unilateral pedunculopontine nucleus deep brain stimulation (DBS). We demonstrated a near doubling of nocturnal REM sleep between the DBS "off" and DBS "on" states, without significant changes in other sleep states. This represents the first demonstration that DBS can selectively modulate human sleep, and it supports an important role for the pedunculopontine nucleus region in modulating human REM sleep. Ann Neurol 2009;66:110-114.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations110
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of NeurologySame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207