Sleep Disturbances and Associated Factors in Drug-Naïve Patients with Parkinson’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Sleep disturbance is one of the common symptoms in Parkinson's disease (PD). The study of sleep disturbance used to concentrate on treated PD. This study aimed to investigate the factors that are associated with the sleep quality of drug-naïve patients with PD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All participants were interviewed using a standard questionnaire to collect basic information. PD severity, depression symptoms, anxiety symptoms, sleep quality, cognitive status, life quality, and the presence of rapid eye movement (REM) sleep behavior disorder (RBD) and minor hallucination were assessed using corresponding rating scales. The patients with a Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index score ≤6 fell into the poor sleep group, and those with REM Sleep Behavior Disorder Screening Questionnaire score ≥5 were considered to have probable RBD. RESULTS: Seventy drug-naive patients with PD and 30 healthy controls matched for age, sex, and education were recruited. Up to 41.4% of the patients suffered from sleep disturbance, and 24.3% of the patients had RBD. Poor sleepers were more likely to have left-side predominant motor symptoms. Compared with good sleepers, poor sleepers, particularly female patients, had more burden in the aspect of anxiety and depression. RBD was associated with more nonmotor symptoms, poor sleep quality, bad performance in cognition orientation domain, anxiety, depression, presence of minor hallucination, and poor life quality. CONCLUSION: Sleep disturbances are common in drug-naïve PD and require wide attention. Motor symptom laterality and gender difference in mood are associated with sleep quality. Depression, anxiety, and RBD are highly related to sleep disturbance. RBD has many comorbidities, which can influence the cognitive function and life quality of the patients.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".