Comorbid neuropsychiatric and autonomic features in REM sleep behavior disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our aim is to define the extent of comorbidities in order to improve clinical care of patients with idiopathic rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder (iRBD) utilizing the REM Sleep Behavior Disorder Associations with Parkinson's Disease Study (RAPiDS) cohort. METHODS: Consecutive adult study participants with iRBD confirmed on polysomnogram (PSG) were prospectively recruited from the Weill Cornell Center for Sleep Medicine. Evaluations comprised multiple facets of sleep, neurological, autonomic, and psychiatric function. RESULTS: Participants evaluated included 30 individuals with iRBD, with mean 1.5 ± 2.3 years from PSG to neuropsychiatric evaluation. Mean age was 59.5 ± 16.0 years at time of PSG, and 6/30 were women. Urinary difficulties were reported in 14/30 (47%): slight 7 (23%), mild 4 (13%), moderate 2 (7%), and severe 1 (3.0%). Ten out of 29 (34%) had abnormal Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores and the mean was 26.5 ± 3.2. The distribution of MoCA scores was significantly associated with urinary problems insofar as the more severe urinary problems were, the lower the MoCA scores (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In this RAPiDS cohort, we detected an unexpectedly high occurrence of non-motor dysfunction. Our results point to the need for screening patients with iRBD for complaints that are actionable, for example those affecting mood, cognition, urinary function, and bowel function. We propose the term RBD+ to be used to identify such individuals. For the quality of life in patients diagnosed with RBD, a closer look by the clinician should be enacted, with appropriate referrals and workup.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".