MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2596750371 · doi:10.1038/s41531-017-0011-7

Insomnia and somnolence in idiopathic RBD: a prospective cohort study

2017· article· en· W2596750371 on OpenAlexafffund
Ronald B. Postuma, Jean‐François Gagnon, Amélie Pelletier, Jacques Montplaisir

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Parkinson s Disease · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalMontreal General Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsEpworth Sleepiness ScaleSomnolencePittsburgh Sleep Quality IndexDementia with Lewy bodiesInsomniaInternal medicineCohortMedicineREM sleep behavior disorderSleep disorderParkinson's diseasePolysomnographyDementiaPsychologyDiseasePsychiatryAdverse effectApnea

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Although some sleep disorders are markers of prodromal Parkinson’s disease and dementia with Lewy bodies, it is unclear whether insomnia and somnolence can predict disease. We assessed a large cohort of patients with idiopathic rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder and age/sex matched controls, comparing the Epworth sleepiness scale, the Insomnia Severity Index, the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and polysomnographic variables. In those with repeated scales, we assessed change over time. Finally, we assessed whether sleep abnormalities predicted defined neurodegenerative disease. The 151 patients (age = 65.9, 75% male) completed sleep scales and were included. Epworth scores were similar between patients and controls (7.0+/−4.6 vs. 7.2+/−4.7, p = 0.77), and did not progress with time (change = +0.46+/−2.1, p = 0.45). Epworth scores were similar between those who developed neurodegenerative disease and those remaining disease-free (6.7+/−4.4 vs. 7.1+/−4.7, p = 0.70). Pittsburgh Index scores were higher in patients than controls (7.2+/−3.8 vs. 4.9+/−3.4, p = 0.004), mainly driven by the sleep disturbance/medication components (reflecting rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder symptoms/treatment). Baseline Pittsburgh scores did not predict conversion to neurodegeneration, although sleep duration increased over time in those converting to neurodegenerative disease (+0.88+/−1.32 h, p = 0.014). Insomnia index scores were higher in patients than controls (10.0+/−5.5 vs. 6.35+/−4.66, p < 0.001), but declined over time (−1.43+/−5.09, p = 0.029) particularly in those converting to neurodegenerative disease. Finally, on polysomnogram, those with increased tonic rapid eye movement had higher risk of developing defined neurodegenerative disease (HR = 1.88, p = 0.039). In summary, we found that somnolence and insomnia do not predict neurodegeneration in idiopathic rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder. As neurodegeneration progresses through prodromal stages, patients may have increasing sleep drive and duration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj Parkinson s DiseaseSame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207