Orthostatic hypotension and REM sleep behaviour disorder: impact on clinical outcomes in α-synucleinopathies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Review the effect of orthostatic hypotension (OH) and rapid-eye-movement sleep behavioural disorder (RBD) on survival, cognitive impairment and postural stability, and discuss pathogenic mechanisms involved in the association of these two common non-motor features with relevant clinical outcomes in α-synucleinopathies. METHODS: We searched PubMed (January 2007-February 2019) for human studies of OH and RBD evaluating cognitive impairment, postural instability, and survival in Parkinson's disease (PD), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), multiple system atrophy (MSA) and pure autonomic failure (PAF). Included studies were analysed for design, key results and limitations as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. RESULTS: OH and RBD showed a positive association with cognitive impairment in PD and DLB, conflicting association in PAF, and no association in MSA. OH was correlated with incident falls and postural instability in PD and DLB but not in MSA. The association between RBD and postural instability was inconclusive; positive in five studies, negative in seven. OH, but not RBD, correlated with reduced survival in PD, DLB and MSA. The combination of OH and RBD was associated with cognitive impairment and more rapid progression of postural instability. CONCLUSIONS: OH and RBD yielded individual and combined negative effects on disability in α-synucleinopathies, reflecting a 'malignant' phenotype of PD with early cognitive impairment and postural instability. Underlying mechanisms may include involvement of selected brainstem cholinergic and noradrenergic nuclei.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".