MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3031436541 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsaa056.1062

1066 Rapid Eye Movement (REM) Sleep Duration in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Varies Dynamically and Directly Within the Individual With Indices of Sleep Consolidation and Parasympathetic Tone

2020· article· en· W3031436541 on OpenAlexaff
Madhulika A. Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRapid eye movement sleepNon-rapid eye movement sleepPsychologyArousalSleep (system call)AudiologyPolysomnographyAnesthesiaEye movementMedicinePsychiatryApneaNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Autonomic arousal in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has been associated with functional hypoactivation of the medial prefrontal cortex and hyperactivity of the amygdala which can directly affect sleep physiology including REM sleep. REM sleep has been associated with reduced fear conditioning; and PTSD has been associated with REM sleep fragmentation. A case report of a drug-free PTSD patient (Gupta MA,2019) who underwent 10 home sleep apnea tests (HSATs) observed a dynamic and inverse relation between REM sleep duration and indices of sympathetic activation during sleep and sleep fragmentation. This study has examined the relationship between REM sleep duration and sleep parameters related to sleep consolidation and parasympathetic tone in 17 PTSD patients who had completed at least 10 HSATs each. Methods 17 civilian PTSD patients (all female; mean±SD age: 47.59±10.52 years; 16 white) each completed 10 HSATs (WatchPAT200, Itamar)(over 1 to 45 months). The mean±SD initial PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 score was 49.24±13.08 (n=17), and Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) score was ≥55. Patients using benzodiazepines and/or narcotics were excluded. Results The overall mean±SD REM duration for all 10 visits (for 17x10 HSATs) was 84.40±8.65 minutes (range 69.13-96.97 min); the mean REM duration over the 10 HSATs correlated with other sleep indices as follows: sleep onset latency (Pearson r= -0.667, p=0.035); sleep efficiency (r=0.636, p=0.048); light sleep (NI+N2) percentage (r= -0.754, p=0.012); light sleep duration (r=0.692, p=0.027);deep sleep (N3) duration (r=0.635, p=0.048). Conclusion Over the 10 HSATs the average (n=17) REM sleep duration was directly related to indices of sleep consolidation (decreased sleep latency, increased sleep efficiency, increase in both light and deep sleep duration). The direct relation of REM sleep duration to duration of deep sleep, and inverse relation with light sleep percentage suggests REM sleep- related promotion of increased parasympathetic tone within the individual. Support None

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.629

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207