Olfactory function deteriorates in patients with Parkinson's disease complicated with REM sleep behavior disorder
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is not concluded whether the association between olfactory dysfunction and REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD) were worsen cognitive function in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). We sought to evaluate the impact of these symptoms in PD. We examined 62 patients with PD using an olfactory test (Odor Stick Identification Test for Japanese: OSIT-J) and polysomnography (PSG). We divided the patients into 3 groups: PD with clinical RBD (n = 32), PD with subclinical RBD (n = 11), and PD with normal REM sleep (n = 19). We compared their clinical backgrounds, results of OSIT-J, autonomic functions, and cognitive functions such as Montreal cognitive assessment Japanese version (MoCA-J). Some factors associated with RBD were analyzed by multiple regression. There were significant differences in the results of OSIT-J, and autonomic and cognitive functions between the 3 groups. There were significant differences in the total OSIT-J score between the 3 groups (PD with clinical RBD: 3.3 ± 2.2, PD with subclinical RBD: 4.0 ± 2.6, PD with normal REM sleep: 6.7 ± 3.0, p < 0.001). Patients in the group with PD with clinical RBD had a significantly lower score than those with normal REM sleep (p < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed that OSIT-J score was significantly associated with RBD. The PD group with clinical RBD had more patients with mild cognitive impairment than the group with normal REM sleep. Multiple regression analysis revealed that olfactory dysfunction was correlated with MoCA-J. Olfactory dysfunction is associated with RBD. Especially, it is important to screen olfactory function in RBD complicated patients with PD in view of cognitive impairment.
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.
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 it