Are unrefreshing naps associated with nocturnal sleep architecture specificities in idiopathic hypersomnia?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Unrefreshing naps are supportive clinical features of idiopathic hypersomnia (IH) and are reported by more than 50% of IH patients. They are, however, not mandatory for the diagnosis, and their pathophysiological nature is not understood. This study aimed at verifying whether IH patients with and without unrefreshing naps constitute two subtypes of IH based on their demographic/clinical characteristics, and sleep architecture. METHODS: One hundred twelve IH patients underwent a polysomnography (PSG) followed by a multiple sleep latency test (MSLT). They completed questionnaires on excessive daytime sleepiness, mood, and sleep quality. They were met by sleep medicine physicians who conducted a semi-structured clinical interview and questioned them on refreshing aspects of their naps. Patients who reported unrefreshing naps were compared to patients reporting refreshing naps on questionnaires, MSLT and PSG variables, with age as a covariable. As sensitivity analyses, we performed the same comparisons in participants presenting objective markers of IH and those diagnosed with IH based only on clinical judgment (subjective IH), separately. RESULTS: In the whole sample, 61% of patients reported unrefreshing naps. These participants had less awakenings, a lower percentage of N1 sleep, less sleep stage transitions, and a higher percentage of REM sleep on the nighttime PSG compared to the refreshing naps subgroup. When subjective and objective IH patients were tested separately, more group differences were observed on PSG for subjective IH patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with unrefreshing naps have less fragmented sleep compared to those with refreshing naps. Future studies should investigate whether this group difference indicates a weaker arousal drive.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".