Disturbed nighttime sleep in children and adults with rhythmic movement disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Rhythmic movements (RMs) during sleep are frequent and often considered as benign in children. Disabling forms are diagnosed as RM disorder and may persist in adulthood. Whether RMs severely impact sleep architecture in patients with RM disorder remain unclear. We performed a case-control study to characterize the clinical and polysomnographic patterns of children and adults with a diagnosis of RM disorder in comparison to controls, and to assess the associations between the RMs and the sleep architecture. METHODS: All consecutive patients (n = 50; 27 children, 35 males) with RM disorder from a single sleep clinic (from 2006 to 2019) underwent a comprehensive clinical evaluation and a polysomnographic recording in comparison to 75 controls (42 children and 53 males). RESULTS: About 82% of children and adult patients had a complaint of disturbed nighttime sleep. Comorbid neurodevelopmental, affective or sleep disorders were found in 92% of patients. While RM sequences defined by video polysomnographic criteria were observed in 82% of patients (in wakefulness and in all sleep stages), no similar sequences were observed in controls. Patients had altered sleep continuity, with low sleep efficiency, increased wake time after sleep onset, and frequent periodic leg movements and apnea events. The severity of RMs was associated with disrupted nighttime sleep, even after controlling for comorbid motor and respiratory events. CONCLUSIONS: RM disorder is a rare, highly comorbid and disabling condition both in children and adults with frequent disturbed nighttime sleep that may contribute to the burden of the disease.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".