A clinical research of rapid eye movement sleep without atonia in patients with narcolepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To quantitatively research the chin electromyography (EMG) increasing level of narcolepsy in rapid eye movement(REM) period, and analyze its association with clinical features and rapid eye movement sleep without atonia (RSWA). Methods Sixty-six patients with narcolepsy underwent video-polysomnography (video-PSG) and multiple sleep latency test (MSLT), and were grouped by quantitative research of the chin EMG levels during overnight REM (patients with elevated level belongs to RSWA group(n=31)). The data from general clinical data, video-PSG and MSLT and neuro-psychological assessment (Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment) were analyzed statistically. Results Compared with narcolepsy without RSWA group (n=35), narcolepsy with RSWA group showed higher ESS score (17.9±4.1 vs 15.4±4.9, t=2.236, P=0.029), longer average time (min) per drowsiness (38.3±28.4 vs 19.2±11.2, t=2.931, P=0.030), higher incidence of cataplexy (58.1%(18/31) vs 28.6%(10/35); χ2=6.281, P=0.012). In the polysomnography parameters, narcolepsy with RSWA group had shorter sleep latency (2.00(0.50, 3.50) min vs 3.00(1.75, 9.50) min; Z=3.007, P=0.003), higher total arousal index (31.4±14.4 vs 22.9±13.1; t=2.368, P=0.021), and micro arousal index ((13.0±7.19)/h vs (9.2±6.5)/h; t=2.080, P=0.042) and spontaneous arousal index((11.9±7.1)/h vs(8.1±5.4)/h; t=2.500, P=0.015). There was no significant difference in sleep structure between the narcolepsy with RSWA group and narcolepsy without RSWA group. In MSLT parameters, shorter average REM sleep latency (min) appeared in narcolepsy with RSWA group(3.5±1.7 vs 5.3±4.5, t=-2.190, P=0.027). Logistic regression analysis showed that the phase of the chin EMG (OR=1.103, 95% CI 1.008-1.207, P=0.033) and tension chin EMG (OR=1.339, 95% CI 1.111-1.615, P=0.002)were significantly associated with cataplexy. Conclusions Narcolepsy with RSWA group showed sleep fragmentation, severer daytime sleepiness, and higher risk of cataplexy. Therefore, narcolepsy patients with high chin EMG had a higher prevalence of cataplexy. Key words: Narcolepsy; Electrophysiology; Polysomnography; Rapid eye movement sleep without atonia
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".