Double-blind, Crossover, Placebo-controlled Trial of Bromocriptine in Patients with Sleep Bruxism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was designed to assess the effects of bromocriptine, a dopamine D2 receptor agonist, on sleep bruxism. Seven otherwise healthy patients with severe and frequent sleep bruxism participated in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The study used a crossover design that included 2 weeks of active treatment or placebo with a washout period of 1 week. To further evaluate whether bromocriptine influences striatal D2 receptor binding, we used iodine-123-iodobenzamide single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) under both placebo and bromocriptine regimens. Bromocriptine did not reduce the frequency of episodes of bruxism during sleep (mean +/- SEM, 9.0 +/- 1.0 and 9.6 +/- 1.5 bruxism episodes per hour for placebo and bromocriptine, respectively) or the amplitude of masseter muscle contractions (root mean square values, 48.2 +/- 15.5 microV and 46.9 +/- 12.7 microV for placebo and bromocriptine, respectively). SPECT also failed to reveal that either treatment had any influence on striatal D2 binding (values for total binding in counts/pixel, 1.80 [1.72-1.93] and 1.79 [1.56-1.87] for placebo and bromocriptine, respectively). This study shows that a nightly dose of bromocriptine does not exacerbate or reduce sleep bruxism motor activity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".