Vestibular symptoms are related to the proportion of REM sleep in people with sleep complaints: A preliminary report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: Though sleep problems (apnea, insomnia) and related daytime symptoms (fatigue, anxiety, depression) have been associated with vestibular problems (falls, dizziness), it is not well known which particular sleep features relate to vestibular problems. We thus assessed symptoms of vestibular problems in patients visiting a sleep clinic and evaluated how they were associated with objective sleep parameters derived from polysomnography and relevant daytime symptoms. PATIENTS/METHODS: The polysomnography data of thirty-one patients (61% female, between 20 and 79 years of age) who were referred for clinical sleep assessment was collated with subjective measures of symptoms linked to vestibular problems (rated on the Situational Characteristics Questionnaire), as well as fatigue, anxiety and depression symptoms. Multiple linear regression was used to identify factors associated with vestibular symptoms, including analyses adjusted for age, sex, medication use and total sleep time. RESULTS: A higher percentage of REM sleep and more severe anxiety symptoms were independently associated with more severe vestibular symptoms, which survived adjusted analyses. Other sleep stages, as well as as sleep efficiency, apnea-hypopnea index and oxygen saturation were not significantly related to vestibular symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: These results point at vestibular symptoms as possible important and overlooked correlates of variations in sleep architecture in individuals with sleep complaints. Though replication is needed to confirm findings from this limited sample, the results highlight the importance of assessing vestibular symptoms in people with sleep complaints. In particular, further investigations will need to address the potential implication of REM sleep for vestibular functions and the directionality of this relation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".