MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2775612092 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsx197

Prevalence and determinants of rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder in the general population

2017· article· en· W2775612092 on OpenAlexaff
José Haba‐Rubio, Birgit Frauscher, Pedro Marques‐Vidal, Jérôme Toriel, Nadia Tobback, Daniela Andries, Martin Preisig, Péter Vollenweider, Ronald B. Postuma, Raphaël Heinzer

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsMontreal General HospitalQueen's University
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation of Sri LankaGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsParasomniaPolysomnographyREM sleep behavior disorderRapid eye movement sleepMedicinePopulationObstructive sleep apneaSleep StagesSleep (system call)Non-rapid eye movement sleepInternal medicinePediatricsPsychologyPsychiatryAudiologyApneaEye movementOphthalmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Rapid eye movement (REM) sleep behavior disorder (RBD) is a parasomnia associated with neurodegenerative synucleinopathies. Its prevalence is largely unknown. This study determined the prevalence and characteristics of RBD in the general population using gold-standard polysomnography. METHODS: Full polysomnographic data from 1,997 participants (age = 59 ± 11.1 years, 53.6% women) participating in a population-based study (HypnoLaus, Lausanne, Switzerland) were collected. Sleep-related complaints and habits were investigated using various sleep measures including the Munich Parasomnia Screening (MUPS) questionnaire, which includes two questions evaluating complex motor behaviors suggestive of RBD. Full polysomnography was performed at home. For participants screening positive for RBD, muscle activity during REM sleep was quantified to diagnose RBD. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty-eight participants endorsed dream-enactment behavior on either of the two MUPS questions, and 21 fulfilled polysomnographic criteria for RBD, resulting in an estimated prevalence of 1.06% (95% CI = 0.61-1.50), with no difference between men and women. Compared with RBD- participants, RBD+ took more frequently antidepressants and antipsychotics (23.8% vs. 5.4%, p = .005; 14.3% vs. 1.5%, p = .004, respectively) and were more frequently smokers or ex-smokers (85% vs. 56.6%, p = .011). On polysomnography, RBD+ had more stage N2 sleep (52 ± 11.5% vs. 46.3 ± 10.2%, p = .024) and less REM sleep (18 ± 6.4% vs. 21.9 ± 6.2%, p = .007), lower apnea-hypopnea index in REM sleep (3.8 ± 5.2 vs. 8.9 ± 13/hour, p = .035), and lower autonomic arousal index (31 ± 14.9 vs. 42.6 ± 19.5/hour, p = .002). CONCLUSIONS: In our middle-to-older age population-based sample, the prevalence of RBD was 1.06%, with no difference between men and women. RBD was associated with antidepressant and antipsychotic use and with minor differences in sleep structure.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations270
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207