Periodic limb movements during sleep are associated with cardiovascular diseases: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Periodic limb movements during sleep present with repetitive movements, typically in the lower limbs, during sleep. Periodic limb movements during sleep have been proposed to be associated with increased risk of heart diseases. The aim of this study was to examine the co-morbidity rates of heart disease, including acute myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease and cardiovascular disease, in subjects with or without periodic limb movements during sleep through a meta-analysis. An electronic review of PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, Web of Science, ClinicalKey and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed. Clinical studies, case-controlled trials and cohort studies were all included in the search. Case reports or series, and non-clinical studies were excluded. A meta-analysis of the results of six studies comparing the prevalence of coronary artery disease/acute myocardial infarction/cardiovascular disease in subjects with/without periodic limb movements during sleep was performed. There were significantly higher co-morbidity rates of coronary artery disease (odds ratio = 1.568, 95% confidence interval: 1.187-2.073, p = 0.002) and cardiovascular disease (odds ratio = 1.279, 95% confidence interval: 1.095-1.494, p = 0.002), but not acute myocardial infarction (odds ratio = 1.272, 95% confidence interval = 0.942-1.718, p = 0.117), in the periodic limb movements during sleep group than in the non-periodic limb movements during sleep group. This meta-analysis highlights the importance of a significantly high prevalence of coronary artery disease and cardiovascular disease in subjects with periodic limb movements during sleep. Further studies should be focused on the potential pathophysiology, and whether treatment for periodic limb movements during sleep can improve the outcome of heart disease.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".