MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Association between waking EEG slowing and REM sleep behavior disorder in PD without dementia

2004· article· en· W2021823191 on OpenAlexaff
Jean Gagnon, Maria Livia Fantini, Marc‐André Bédard, Dominique Petit, Julie Carrier, Sylvie Rompré, Anne Décary, Michel Panisset, J. Montplaisir

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyWakefulnessPsychologyK-complexDementiaAudiologyREM sleep behavior disorderSleep (system call)Sleep spindleNon-rapid eye movement sleepSlow-wave sleepRapid eye movement sleepNeuroscienceMedicinePolysomnographyInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare nondemented patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) with and without REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD) to healthy controls on quantitative EEG characteristics for both wakefulness and REM sleep. METHODS: Fifteen patients with PD (7 patients with polysomnographic-confirmed RBD [PD-RBD] and 8 patients without RBD [PD-NRBD]) and 15 healthy control subjects were studied. Each subject underwent a quantitative EEG analysis of both wakefulness and REM sleep. RESULTS: During wakefulness, patients with PD-RBD showed a higher theta power in frontal, parietal, temporal, and occipital regions in comparison to patients with PD-NRBD and control subjects. Moreover, a slowing of the dominant occipital frequency was observed only in patients with PD-RBD (p < 0.02). Patients with PD-NRBD did not present any slowing of the EEG. No between-group difference in quantitative REM sleep EEG was observed. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the EEG slowing reported during wakefulness in nondemented patients with PD is strongly related to the presence of RBD.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 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

Citations113
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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