<scp>REM</scp> sleep without atonia and neurocognitive function in isolated <scp>REM</scp> sleep behaviour disorder: Cross‐sectional and longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the relationship between rapid eye movement sleep without atonia and cognitive profiles in individuals diagnosed with isolated rapid eye movement sleep behaviour disorder, assesssing both cross-sectional associations and their link to phenoconversion in a longitudinal follow-up. Participants underwent video-polysomnography, neurological examination, neuropsychological tests and structured interviews to confirm isolated rapid eye movement sleep behaviour disorder. Rapid eye movement sleep without atonia was manually scored using the Montreal method, and participants were categorized into either high or low electromyography activity groups, based on their tonic and phasic electromyography activities. The cross-sectional study included 250 patients with isolated rapid eye movement sleep behaviour disorder, revealing that those with high tonic electromyography activity exhibited significantly lower scores in the constructional praxis recall than those with low tonic electromyography activity (p = 0.002). In the longitudinal study, 79 participants (63 isolated rapid eye movement sleep behaviour disorder and 16 phenoconversion), tracked for at least 5 years, demonstrated that high tonic electromyography activity (odds ratio: 6.14; 95% confidence interval: 1.23-30.60; p = 0.027) and lower performance on the Trail Making Test A (odds ratio: 0.23; 95% confidence interval: 0.11-0.70; p = 0.007) were associated with future phenoconversion. These results confirm the link between tonic electromyography activity and neurodegeneration in isolated rapid eye movement sleep behaviour disorder. Combining rapid eye movement sleep without atonia assessment with cognitive evaluation could serve as an early predictive marker for phenoconversion in clinical settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".