Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explain relatively common phenomenon of laughing during sleep and help to better define criteria for differentiating between physiological and pathological sleep-laughing. METHODS: Observational study of patients who underwent a sleep assessment in a referential tertiary health facility. RESULTS: A total of ten patients exhibited sleep laughing, nine of whom had episodes associated with rapid eye movement (REM) sleep. Also, in one of the patients sleep-laughing was one of the symptoms of REM sleep Behaviour Disorder, and in another patient sleep-laughing was associated with NREM sleep arousal parasomnia. CONCLUSION: The collected data and review of literature suggests that hypnogely in majority of the cases presents as a benign physiological phenomenon related to dreaming and REM sleep. Typically, these dreams are odd, bizarre or even unfunny for a person when awake. Nevertheless, they bring a sense of mirth and a genuine behavioural response. In a minority of cases, sleep-laughing appears to be a symptom of neurological disorders affecting the central nervous system. In these patients the behavioural substrate differs when compared to physiological laughing, and the sense of mirth is usually absent.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".