MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386170633 · doi:10.1016/j.prdoa.2023.100216

Neurologic and psychiatric features of impending neurodegeneration in iRBD

2023· article· en· W4386170633 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daniel A. Barone, Harini Sarva, Natalie Hellmers, Fei Wang, Zhenxing Xu, Ana C. Krieger, Claire Henchcliffe

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Parkinsonism & Related Disorders · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
KeywordsREM sleep behavior disorderPsychiatryPsychologyParkinson's diseaseDepression (economics)ParkinsonismMovement disordersAnxietyCohortRating scaleDiseaseClinical psychologyMedicinePolysomnographyElectroencephalographyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Idiopathic rapid eye movement (REM) sleep behavior disorder (iRBD) is linked to Parkinson's disease and other alpha-synucleinopathies, but various subsets of iRBD may not carry equal risk (i.e., those with depression are at higher risk than those without). Here, we prospectively focus on neurologic and psychiatric aspects of subjects with iRBD, in an attempt to determine what factors are prominent in those who undergo phenoconversion as opposed to those who do not. Methods: We analyzed data from the "REM Sleep Behavior Disorder Associations with Parkinson's Disease Study (RAPiDS)" cohort both at baseline and then at follow-up evaluations (1 to 3 years later) utilizing several neurologic batteries, including the Movement Disorder Society's Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Questionnaire for Impulsive-Compulsive Disorders in Parkinson's Disease (QUIP), the 10-M Walk Test (10MWT), and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale. Determination of phenoconversion was ascertained from physical examination and medical chart review from the initial evaluation onward. Results: Of those who completed both evaluations, there were 33 subjects with iRBD, with an average age of 63.1 ± 12.8 years, with 9 women and 24 men. Of these, 8 (24%) iRBD subjects developed neurodegenerative illness, and demonstrated multiple areas of neurologic and psychiatric signs and symptoms, such as speech and movement problems as well as anxiety and depression. Conclusions: Our data adds to the literature regarding risk of phenoconversion in those with iRBD. Further study will be needed, but it is clear that not all subjects with iRBD present the same risk for 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.741

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Parkinsonism & Related DisordersSame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207