Mild cognitive impairment in rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder and Parkinson's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the frequency and subtypes of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in idiopathic rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder (RBD) and Parkinson's disease (PD) in association with RBD. METHODS: One hundred and twelve subjects without dementia or major depression including 32 idiopathic RBD patients, 22 PD patients with polysomnography-confirmed RBD, 18 PD patients without RBD, and 40 healthy control subjects, underwent a comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation. We compared the proportion of patients with MCI between groups using standard diagnostic criteria. RESULTS: MCI was found in 50% of idiopathic RBD patients and 73% of PD patients with RBD. In contrast, only 11% of PD patients without RBD and 8% of control subjects had MCI. The presence of MCI was significantly greater in idiopathic RBD patients and PD patients with RBD than in PD patients without RBD and control subjects. PD patients with RBD also performed worse than idiopathic RBD patients on neuropsychological tests assessing visuoconstructional and visuoperceptual abilities. INTERPRETATION: In both its association with PD and its idiopathic form, RBD is an important risk factor for MCI. Except for visuoconstructional and visuoperceptual problems, RBD may be an important determinant of cognitive impairment in PD. Ann Neurol 2009;66:39-47.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".