Idiopathic REM sleep behavior disorder in the transition to degenerative disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Idiopathic REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD) predicts Parkinson's disease (PD) and dementia. However, the nature of the disease that emerges from RBD has not been fully characterized. Since 2004, we have been conducting a prospective study of idiopathic RBD patients, providing an opportunity to directly observe patients as they transitioned to a defined neurodegenerative syndrome. Patients with idiopathic RBD underwent an extensive annual evaluation of motor function, olfaction, color vision, autonomic function, cognition and psychiatric symptoms. Neurodegenerative disease was defined according to standard criteria. We compared these measures in patients who had developed PD to those with dementia, all within the first year of developing disease. Of 67 patients, 6 developed PD and eleven developed dementia. Except for cognitive functioning, all tests of olfaction, color vision, autonomic function, depression, and quantitative measures of motor speed were similar in patients with PD and dementia. Of dementia patients, seven met criteria for probable Lewy body dementia (LBD) and four for Alzheimer's disease (or, possible LBD). In all probable LBD cases, the diagnosis was made because of parkinsonism, with no patient experiencing hallucinations or fluctuations. Patients with "Alzheimer's disease" seemed to have LBD, as they demonstrated typical LBD cognitive profiles on neuropsychological testing and were indistinguishable from LBD patients in ancillary measures. Therefore, among RBD patients with new-onset LBD, hallucinations or fluctuations are absent, suggesting that RBD is a reliable early sign of LBD. The indistinguishability of dementia and PD in all ancillary measures suggests a single unitary "RBD-then-neurodegeneration" process, the clinical presentation of which depends upon selective neuronal vulnerability.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".