Subjective Assessment of Sleep in Huntington Disease: Reliability of Sleep Questionnaires Compared to Polysomnography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical reliability of subjective sleep evaluation, based on sleep and psychometric questionnaires, by comparing the results with those obtained with laboratory-based video-polysomnography (V-PSG). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty consecutive Huntington disease (HD) patients were enrolled. Subjective evaluation of sleep included the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), the sleep questionnaire for HD (HDQ), the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, the Bologna questionnaire for sleepiness (BQ), the Berlin questionnaire, and the RBD questionnaire; the International Restless Legs Syndrome Study Group scale was administered to patients with positive screening. The psychometric evaluation included the Zung Anxiety Scale, the short form of the Beck Depression Inventory, and the Maudsley Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory. All patients underwent V-PSG. RESULTS: In sleepiness evaluation, the Epworth score was above the cutoff in 6 subjects, and the BQ detected a "high risk" of sleepiness in 7 cases. The results were concordant in 24 and discordant in 5 cases. In the evaluation of sleep quality, the PSQI score was above the cutoff in 18 subjects. According to the HDQ, 10 subjects were poor sleepers. The results were concordant with the PSQI in 20 subjects. DISCUSSION: All comparisons between scale scores and PSG results showed poor or totally absent concordance between subjective and objective measures. SIGNIFICANCE: The subjective evaluation of sleep in HD patients shows a poor correlation with PSG results.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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".