Study on transcranial sonography in patients with idiopathic rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the changes of transcranial sonography (TCS) in patients with rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder (RBD). Methods Fifteen patients fulfilled the diagnostic criteria of RBD according to International Classification of Sleep Disorders (ICSD, 2nd edition). Under the monitor of polysomnography (PSG), the sleep architectures of all RBD cases were evaluated by Polysmith software and visual analysis. Furthermore, all RBD patients and 15 normal controls underwent TCS. Cases with substantia nigra echo intensity over Ⅲ grade and substantia nigra area over 0.20 cm2 were supposed to be hyperechogenicity. Additionally, the width of the third ventricle was measured and whether there was hyperechogenicity in basal ganglia was evaluated. The cognitive functions were evaluated by Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Results RBD patients presented typical clinical manifestations and electrophysiologic changes. No significant difference (P = 0.080, 0.109) was found in the comparison of hyperechogenicity rate on substantia nigra (6/15) and basal ganglia (7/15) in RBD patients and normal controls (1/15, 2/15). No significant difference in the comparison of MoCA was found in RBD patients with or without substantia nigra hyperechogenicity (P = 0.075). The RBD patients with hyperechogenicity on basal ganglia had higher MMSE scores than those without hyperechogenicity on basal ganglia, and the difference was significant (P = 0.021). Conclusions RBD which is suggested as the prodromal period of synucleinopathy may present hyperechogenicity in substantia nigra and basal ganglia on TCS. TCS could detect subclinical changes of brain and evaluate the risk of synucleinopathy. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-6731.2016.04.010
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 | 0.001 | 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".