Sleep and daytime sleepiness in retinitis pigmentosa patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We examined sleep, daytime sleepiness and the ability to stay awake during the day in patients affected with retinitis pigmentosa (RP), to further delineate the role of photoreceptors in the circadian cycle. METHODS: Twelve individuals diagnosed with RP (40 +/- 8 years) And 12 normally sighted healthy individuals (39 +/- 7 years) matched for age, body mass index (BMI) and sex were selected for the study. Participants had their sleep recorded on two consecutive nights and were monitored on the two following days. On the first day, their ability to stay awake and on the second, their sleep propensity were assessed using the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT) and the Multiple Sleep Latency Test (MSLT), respectively. Self-report measures were obtained using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), and the Toronto Hospital Alertness Test (THAT). RESULTS: Subjective daytime sleepiness (ESS: 9 +/- 5 vs. 6 +/- 4, P=0.053) and objectively measured sleep propensity (MSLT: 10 +/- 5 vs. 17 +/- 3 min, P < 0.000) were significantly higher in RP patients than controls, whilst their alertness (THAT: 29 +/- 9 vs. 38 +/- 7, P=0.016) and ability to stay awake (MWT: 21 +/- 9 vs. 29 +/- 2 min, P=0.006) were significantly reduced. Retinitis pigmentosa participants had more disturbed nighttime sleep, with significantly more awakenings (arousal index: 14 +/- 8 vs. 8 +/- 6 h, P=0.039), and tended to have less rapid eye movement (REM) sleep (19 +/- 5 vs. 22 +/- 3%, P=0.094). CONCLUSION: Patients with RP have increased daytime sleepiness, reduced alertness and more disturbed nighttime sleep of poorer quality than their normally sighted counterparts, suggesting an influence of photoreceptor degeneration on the circadian cycle.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".