Increased nocturnal periodic limb movements in rheumatoid arthritis patients meeting questionnaire diagnostic criteria for restless legs syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Based on questionnaire criteria, the sensorimotor disorder restless legs syndrome (RLS) has been reported to have a higher prevalence in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients than in the general population. There has been some speculation that peripheral arthritic symptoms may allow false positive responses to questionnaire criteria. This study evaluates whether RA patients meeting RLS questionnaire criteria also have objective evidence of increased periodic limb movements (PLMs) characteristic of RLS. METHODS: Participants were recruited from RA clinic. Questionnaire data collected at study entry included: pain scores, rheumatoid arthritis disease activity index, Epworth sleepiness scale, Pittsburgh sleep quality index and RLS diagnostic criteria. Each participant was provided a PAM-RL actigraphic monitor, which attached to the ankle. This device was worn for two consecutive nights then returned for data download. Laboratory data including hemoglobin, iron studies, renal function and C-reactive protein levels were collected. RESULTS: Of the 57 participants, 23 met RLS diagnostic criteria. Those who met RLS criteria demonstrated higher mean frequency of nocturnal PLMs (19.63/hour; SD:21.13) than those who did not meet RLS criteria (11.13/hour; SD:12.10; p=0.033). There were no significant differences between groups in terms of patient characteristics, disease activity or duration measures. Patients meeting RLS criteria did have poorer sleep quality measures (p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: RA patients who met RLS diagnostic criteria demonstrated higher frequencies of nocturnal PLMs than RA patients who did not meet criteria for RLS. This finding supports use of the RLS diagnostic criteria in helping to differentiate between RA arthritic symptoms and RLS.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".