MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991182946 · doi:10.5665/sleep.3102

Antidepressants and REM Sleep Behavior Disorder: Isolated Side Effect or Neurodegenerative Signal?

2013· article· en· W1991182946 on OpenAlexaff
Ronald B. Postuma, Jean‐François Gagnon, Maria Tuineaig, Josie‐Anne Bertrand, Véronique Latreille, Catherine Desjardins, Jacques Montplaisir

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à MontréalMcGill UniversityCanadian Sleep & Circadian NetworkHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsREM sleep behavior disorderMedicineInternal medicinePolysomnographyProspective cohort studyDepression (economics)Parkinson's diseaseAntidepressantNeurodegenerationDementiaDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Antidepressants, among the most commonly prescribed medications, trigger symptoms of REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD) in up to 6% of users. Idiopathic RBD is a very strong prodromal marker of Parkinson disease and other synuclein-mediated neurodegenerative syndromes. It is therefore critically important to understand whether antidepressant-associated RBD is an independent pharmacologic syndrome or a sign of possible prodromal neurodegeneration. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary sleep disorders center. PARTICIPANTS: 100 patients with idiopathic RBD, all with diagnosis confirmed on polysomnography, stratified to baseline antidepressant use, with 45 matched controls. MEASUREMENTS/RESULTS: Of 100 patients, 27 were taking antidepressants. Compared to matched controls, RBD patients taking antidepressants demonstrated significant abnormalities of 12/14 neurodegenerative markers tested, including olfaction (P = 0.007), color vision (P = 0.004), Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale II and III (P < 0.001 and 0.007), timed up-and-go (P = 0.003), alternate tap test (P = 0.002), Purdue Pegboard (P = 0.007), systolic blood pressure drop (P = 0.029), erectile dysfunction (P = 0.002), constipation (P = 0.003), depression indices (P < 0.001), and prevalence of mild cognitive impairment (13% vs. 60%, P < 0.001). All these abnormalities were indistinguishable in severity from RBD patients not taking antidepressants. However, on prospective follow-up, RBD patients taking antidepressants had a lower risk of developing neurodegenerative disease than those without antidepressant use (5-year risk = 22% vs. 59%, RR = 0.22, 95%CI = 0.06, 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Although patients with antidepressant-associated RBD have a lower risk of neurodegeneration than patients with "purely-idiopathic" RBD, markers of prodromal neurodegeneration are still clearly present. Development of RBD with antidepressants can be an early signal of an underlying neurodegenerative 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 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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations201
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207