MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4293194624 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2022.291

Rapid Eye Movement Sleep Behavior Disorder in Parkinson’s Disease: A Survey-Based Study

2022· article· en· W4293194624 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Verónica Bruno, Marta Ruíz-López, Cinthia Terroba‐Chambi, Maria Eliza Freitas, Rajasumi Rajalingam, Anna Chang, Susan H. Fox, Anthony Edward Lang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoUniversity of CalgaryHotchkiss Brain Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRapid eye movement sleepParkinson's diseaseREM sleep behavior disorderMedicineProdromal StageDiseaseEye movementAge of onsetMovement disordersPsychosisPediatricsInternal medicinePsychologyPsychiatryDementiaOphthalmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To characterize Parkinson's disease (PD) symptoms based on the presence, onset time, and severity of rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder (RBD) and their association with impulse control disorders (ICD). BACKGROUND: RBD is a frequent non-motor symptom in PD, usually described as prodromal. The severity of RBD according to the start time and its relationship with ICD in PD needs further clarification. METHODS: A survey-based study was performed to determine the presence of RBD symptoms, their severity, and the temporal relationship with the PD onset. The survey included RBD1Q, the Mayo Sleep, and the RBDQ-HK questionnaires and questions about clinical characteristics, including ICD. Only PD patients with care partners spending night hours in the same room were included. RESULTS: 410 PD patients were included: 206 with RBD (50.2%) and 204 non-RBD (49.8%). The PD-RBD patients were younger and their daily levodopa dose was higher than the non-RBD group. Most of these patients developed RBD symptoms after the onset of clinical PD were younger at motor symptom onset and had higher scores in the hallucinations and psychosis subsection of MDS-UPDRS-I. RBD group had a more severe non-motor phenotype, including more ICD than those without RBD, mainly due to higher compulsive eating. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, most patients recognized RBD symptoms after the onset of the PD motor symptoms and the clinical features of PD with and without RBD were distinctive, supporting the hypothesis that PD-RBD might represent a variant pattern of neurodegeneration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques→Same topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments→French-language works237,207→