Eye movements in idiopathic rapid eye movement sleep behaviour disorder: High antisaccade error rate reflects prefrontal cortex dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abnormalities of eye movements have been reported in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). However, it is unclear if they occur in the prodromal stage of synucleinopathy represented by idiopathic rapid eye movement sleep behaviour disorder (iRBD). We thus aimed to study eye movements in subjects with iRBD and in de novo PD, to assess if their abnormalities may serve as a clinical biomarker of neurodegeneration. Fifty subjects with polysomnography-confirmed iRBD (46 male, age 40-79 years), 18 newly diagnosed, untreated PD patients (13 male, age 43-75 years) and 25 healthy controls (20 male, age 42-79 years) were prospectively enrolled. Horizontal and vertical ocular prosaccades and antisaccades were investigated with video-oculography. All patients completed the MDS-UPDRS and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. In addition, a neuropsychological battery was performed on iRBD subjects. When compared with healthy controls, both de novo PD patients and iRBD subjects showed increased error rates in the horizontal antisaccade task (p < 0.01, p < 0.05 respectively). In the iRBD group, the error rates in horizontal and vertical antisaccades correlated with performances in the Prague Stroop Test and the Grooved Pegboard Test, as well as with motor scores of the MDS-UPDRS. De novo PD patients showed a lower gain (p < 0.01) compared with controls. In conclusion, the increased error rate in the antisaccade task of iRBD and PD patients reflects a dysfunction of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and is related to the impairment of executive functions and attention.
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".