MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073945043 · doi:10.1002/mds.21255

Phenomenology of dreams in Parkinson's disease

2006· article· en· W2073945043 on OpenAlexaff
Leora L. Borek, Robert Kohn, Joseph H. Friedman

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsCentre for Movement Disorders
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDreamRapid eye movement sleepREM sleep behavior disorderPsychologyParkinson's diseasePopulationContent (measure theory)PsychiatryDiseaseEye movementMedicineInternal medicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder (RBD) occurs in approximately one third of patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and is associated with a loss of muscle atonia during REM sleep and aggressive dream content. We examined the dream characteristics of PD patients to determine whether dream content differed between patients with RBD and without RBD, men and women with RBD, and men and women with PD. One hundred-twenty patients with a diagnosis of idiopathic PD were consecutively recruited from a movement disorders clinic and were assessed for RBD using clinical diagnostic criteria of the International Classification of Sleep Disorders Revised (2001). Verbatim dream content was obtained from each patient and categorized into dream themes that were coded into nominal categories. Fisher's exact tests determined whether particular dreams were correlated with RBD versus non-RBD, men and women with RBD, and men and women with PD. RBD patients had a higher percentage of violent dreams compared to non-RBD patients. There were no significant sex differences in the dream content of RBD patients. Men with PD had more aggressive dreams compared to females with PD. Aggressive dream content was characteristic of RBD patients and sex differences exist in the dream content of the PD population.

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 score0.359
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations81
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMovement DisordersSame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207