Alexithymia Associated with Nightmare Distress in Idiopathic REM Sleep Behavior Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Idiopathic REM sleep behavior disorder (iRBD) is characterized by atypical REM sleep motor activity, vivid dreams and nightmares, and dream-enacting behaviors that can result in injuries to the patient and bed partner. It is also a known predictor of Parkinson disease (PD). Alexithymia has been associated with disturbances in sleep and dreaming (e.g., nightmares) and is a non-motor symptom of PD. We assessed alexithymia and disturbed dreaming in iRBD patients with the aim of determining if these two factors are elevated and interrelated among this population. DESIGN: Questionnaire study of clinically diagnosed patients. SETTING: Clinical sleep disorders center. PATIENTS OR PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two iRBD patients and 30 healthy age- and sex-matched control participants. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Participants completed the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), the Dream Questionnaire, and the Beck Depression Inventory. iRBD patients obtained higher TAS-20 total scores (62.16 ± 13.90) than did controls (52.84 ± 7.62; F 1,59 = 10.44, P < 0.01), even when controlling for depressive symptoms, and more frequently attained the suggested cutoff for alexithymia than did controls (P < 0.01). iRBD patients obtained higher scores on the Difficulty Identifying Feelings alexithymia subscale. For both iRBD and control groups, the Difficulty Indentifying Feelings subscale correlated positively with the Nightmare Distress scale of the Dream Questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated alexithymia scores among idiopathic rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder patients, and especially a difficulty in identifying feelings, parallels evidence of dysautonomia in this population. The higher incidence of distressing nightmares and the association of nightmares with alexithymia further extend similar findings for both clinical and non-clinical samples and suggest that an affect regulation disturbance may be common to the two sets of symptoms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".