MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Heart rate variability and its influencing factors in patients with dementia with Lewy bodies and patients with Parkinson disease dementia

2018· article· en· W3032338308 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ainong Mei, Huan Huang, Jianmin Xiao

Bibliographic record

VenueZhonghua laonian yixue zazhi · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementia with Lewy bodiesDementiaHeart rate variabilityParkinson's diseaseMedicineMontreal Cognitive AssessmentInternal medicineRating scaleCardiologyDiseasePhysical therapyPsychologyHeart rateBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To compare the difference in heart rate variability(HRV)between patients with dementia with Lewy bodies(DLB)and those with Parkinson disease dementia(PDD)and to identify the influencing factors. Methods We retrospectively enrolled 30 patients with DLB(DLB group)and 41 patients with PDD(PDD group)at the outpatient and inpatient services of our hospital from January 2010 to December 2017 in this study, and further recruited 119 normal elderly individuals to serve as the control group.HRV was recorded with 24 h dynamic electrocardiogram and compared between the DLB group and the PDD group.Time domain measures including standard deviation of all normal to normal(NN)intervals(SDNN)and square root of the mean squared differences of successive NN intervals(rMSSD)and frequency domain measures including total power(TP), low frequency(LF), and high frequency(HF)were analyzed with a customized program.The levodopa equivalent dose(LED), mini-mental state examination(MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment(MoCA), Hoehn-Yahr stage(H-Y stage)and the unified Parkinson's disease rating scale Ⅲ(UPDRS Ⅲ), and the Alzheimer's disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living scale(ADCS-ADL)were assessed in DLB and PDD patients to investigate the influencing factors. Results SDNN, TP, and LF in the DLB group and the PDD group were significantly lower than in the control group(F=14.154, 4.742, 4.897, P 0.05). The DLB group and the PDD group did not differ in HF from the control group(P>0.05). There was no significant difference in any HRV indexes between DLB and PDD patients(P>0.05). Correlation analysis showed no correlation of HRV with cognitive level(MMSE, MoCA), motor disturbance degree(UPDRS Ⅲ, H-Yahr stage), daily living ability(ADCS-ADL), or dosage of anti-PD drugs(each P>0.05). Conclusions DLB and PDD patients present similar impairments in autonomic nervous system function, which are not associated with disease severity. Key words: Dementia; Lewy bodies; Parkinson disease; Heart rate variability

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.279 · 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.

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZhonghua laonian yixue zazhiSame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207