REM sleep behaviour disorder in Parkinson's disease is associated with specific motor features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rapid eye movement (REM) sleep behaviour disorder (RBD) is commonly associated with Parkinson's disease (PD), and recent studies have suggested that RBD in PD is associated with increased cognitive impairment, waking EEG slowing, autonomic impairment and lower quality of life on mental health components. However, it is unclear whether the association of RBD in PD has implications for motor manifestations of the disease. METHODS: The study evaluated 36 patients with PD for the presence of RBD by polysomnography. Patients underwent an extensive evaluation on and off medication by a movement disorders specialist blinded to the polysomnography results. Measures of disease severity, quantitative motor indices, motor subtypes, complications of therapy and response to therapy were assessed and compared using regression analysis that adjusted for disease duration and age. RESULTS: Patients with PD and RBD were less likely to be tremor predominant (14% vs 53%; p<0.02) and had a lower proportion of their Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score accounted for by tremor (8.2% vs 19.0%; p<0.01). An increased frequency of falls was noted among patients with RBD (38% vs 7%; p = 0.04). Patients with RBD demonstrated a lower amplitude response to their medication (UPDRS improvement 16.2% vs 34.8%; p = 0.049). Markers of overall disease severity, quantitative motor testing and motor complications did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of altered motor subtypes in PD with RBD suggests that patients with PD and RBD may have a different underlying pattern of neurodegeneration than PD patients without RBD.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".