Relationship of Nocturnal Sleep with Frontal Lobe Function in Mild Cognitive lmpairment(MCI) Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives：Nocturnal sleep disruption has been considered as a risk factor for cognitive impairment in the elderly. And the frontal lobe dysfunction was suggested to predict the progression to dementia. We aimed to illustrate the relationship of nocturnal sleep with frontal lobe function in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) patients. Methods：Thirty MCI patients and 30 age- and sex-matched normal control (NC) subjects were selected. Frontal lobe function tests including Stroop Test, Similarity Test, Digit Span Test (DST), and Benton Visual Retention Test (BVRT) were administrated. Nocturnal polysomnography was done for each subject. Results：There was no significant difference in the sleep parameters and diagnostic distributions of sleep disorders between the MCI and NC groups. In MCI patients, the mean hypopnea index (HI) of the ApoE4 positive group was higher than that of ApoE4 negative group. In the NC group, the wake time after sleep onset (WASO) was negatively correlated with the DST score (r=-0.545). In the MCI group, WASO tended to be negatively correlated with the Similarity Test score (r=-0.376, p=0.053), and slow wave sleep amount (SWS) was negatively correlated with the error score of BVRT (r=-0.489). Conclusion：Although there was no difference in the sleep quality and frequency of SAS between the MCI and NC groups, the severity of SDB was higher in MCI patients with ApoE4 compared to those without ApoE4. In the MCI group, the difficulty in maintaining sleep was associated with decreased executive function, and the decreased SWS was associated with impaired working memory. The relationship of nocturnal sleep with the frontal lobe function in MCI patients appears to be different from that of normal elderly subjects. (J Korean Neuropsychiatr Assoc 2008;47(3):254-262)
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) | 0.001 | 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".