Dream‐enactment behaviours during the <scp>COVID</scp>‐19 pandemic: an international <scp>COVID</scp>‐19 sleep study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been increasing concern about the long-term impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as evidenced by anecdotal case reports of acute-onset parkinsonism and the polysomnographic feature of increased rapid eye movement sleep electromyographic activity. This study aimed to determine the prevalence and correlates of dream-enactment behaviours, a hallmark of rapid eye movement sleep behaviour disorder, which is a prodrome of α-synucleinopathy. This online survey was conducted between May and August 2020 in 15 countries/regions targeting adult participants (aged ≥18 years) from the general population with a harmonised structured questionnaire on sleep patterns and disorders, COVID-19 diagnosis and symptoms. We assessed dream-enactment behaviours using the Rapid Eye Movement Sleep Behaviour Disorder Single-Question Screen with an additional question on their frequency. Among 26,539 respondents, 21,870 (82.2%) answered all items that were analysed in this study (mean [SD] age 41.6 [15.8] years; female sex 65.5%). The weighted prevalence of lifetime and weekly dream-enactment behaviours was 19.4% and 3.1% and were found to be 1.8- and 2.9-times higher in COVID-19-positive cases, respectively. Both lifetime and weekly dream-enactment behaviours were associated with young age, male sex, smoking, alcohol consumption, higher physical activity level, nightmares, COVID-19 diagnosis, olfactory impairment, obstructive sleep apnea symptoms, mood, and post-traumatic stress disorder features. Among COVID-19-positive cases, weekly dream-enactment behaviours were positively associated with the severity of COVID-19. Dream-enactment behaviours are common among the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic and further increase among patients with COVID-19. Further studies are needed to investigate the potential neurodegenerative effect of COVID-19.
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 | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".