Survival in Restless Legs Syndrome: An 11-Year Surveillance, Community-Based Population Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A growing body of evidence relates restless legs syndrome (RLS) to an increased risk of mortality attributable to both cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events. The aim was to investigate survival in patients with RLS. METHODS: This was an observational, retrospective longitudinal study of a cohort of patients followed up for 11 years. RLS was diagnosed by a physician using the International RLS Study Group criteria. Mortality was analyzed using age-standardized mortality ratios (SMR: observed/expected deaths) and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Vital status was studied in a cohort of 232 patients: 181 women (78%), 96 with RLS (41.4%) with a mean age at baseline of 49.8 ± 15.0 years and a mean RLS duration of 14.1 ± 1.9 years, and 136 non-RLS (58.6%) with a mean age of 51.3 ± 14.9 years. This RLS cohort was followed up for a period of 10.4 ± 2.0 years. As of September 2019, 17 (7.3%) patients died (6 with RLS, 6.3%), and the most frequent cause was oncological (66.7%). A total of 944 person-years of observations were available for survival analysis. RLS was not associated with increased mortality in adjusted Cox regression analysis (HR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.40-3.15), and survival was similar to that expected for the general population (SMR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.27-1.36). CONCLUSIONS: RLS seems not to be associated with increased mortality compared to the general population. Still, studies with prospective data collection with large samples are needed to study the long-term mortality risk factors in RLS cohorts.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".