Brain atrophy in Parkinson’s disease with polysomnography-confirmed REM sleep behavior disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aimed to investigate cortical and subcortical brain alterations in people with Parkinson's disease with polysomnography-confirmed rapid eye movement (REM) sleep behavior disorder (RBD). Thirty people with Parkinson's disease, including 15 people with RBD, were recruited and compared with 41 healthy controls. Surface-based cortical and subcortical analyses were performed on T1-weighted images to investigate thickness and shape abnormalities between groups, and voxel-based and deformation-based morphometry were performed to investigate local volume. Correlations were performed in patients to investigate the structural correlates of motor activity during REM sleep. People with RBD showed cortical thinning in the right perisylvian and inferior temporal cortices and shape contraction in the putamen compared with people without RBD. Compared with controls, people with RBD had extensive cortical thinning and volume loss, brainstem volume was reduced, and shape contraction was found in the basal ganglia and hippocampus. In comparison to controls, people without RBD showed more restricted thinning in the sensorimotor, parietal, and occipital cortices, reduced volume in the brainstem, temporal and more posterior areas, and shape contraction in the pallidum and hippocampus. In Parkinson's disease, higher tonic and phasic REM sleep motor activity was associated with contraction of the thalamic surface, extensive cortical thinning, and subtle volume reduction in the middle temporal gyrus. In Parkinson's disease, the presence of RBD is associated with extensive cortical and subcortical abnormalities, suggesting more severe neurodegeneration in people with RBD. This provides potential neuroanatomical correlates for the more severe clinical phenotype reported in people with Parkinson's disease with RBD.
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".