Periodic leg movements during sleep and cognitive functioning in the older general population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The current evidence of a relationship between periodic leg movements during sleep (PLMS) and cognitive functioning is limited and inconsistent. This cross-sectional study assessed associations between PLMS and cognitive functioning among community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: We included community-dwelling older adults who underwent a polysomnography and a cognitive assessment. The PLMS index (PLMI) and PLMS arousal index (PLMAI) were categorized into tertiles: PLMI <5/h (reference), 5-29.9/h, ≥30/h; and PLMAI <1/h (reference), 1-4.9/h, ≥5/h. The cognitive assessment consisted of ten scores covering the main cognitive domains: global cognition, processing speed, executive function, language, episodic verbal memory, and visuospatial function. Associations between PLMI, PLMAI, and cognitive scores were assessed using regression unadjusted and adjusted models. RESULTS: A total of 579 individuals without dementia were included (mean age: 71.5 ± 4.4 years; men 45.4%). The number of participants in the high-PLMI categories, 5-29.9/h and ≥30/h, was 185 (32.0%) and 171 (29.5%), respectively. Participants in the high-PLMI categories showed no significant difference compared to the reference group regarding their cognitive performance according to the unadjusted and adjusted models. Similarly, we found no association between PLMAI severity and cognitive functioning. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows no cross-sectional association between PLMS severity and cognitive functioning among community-dwelling older adults. However, given the paucity of data in this field, further studies are needed to clarify the relationship between PLMS and cognitive functioning.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".