MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405395497 · doi:10.1016/j.smrv.2024.102043

Psychopathology and NREM sleep parasomnias: A systematic review

2024· review· en· W4405395497 on OpenAlexaff
Tijana Tomic, Samantha Mombelli, Luigi Ferini‐Strambi, Andrea Raballo, Mauro Manconi, Andrea Galbiati, Anna Castelnovo

Bibliographic record

VenueSleep Medicine Reviews · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Sleep & Circadian NetworkCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNon-rapid eye movement sleepPsychopathologySleep (system call)PsychologyPsychiatryMedicineClinical psychologyElectroencephalographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep parasomnias are abnormal motor and/or emotional behaviors originating from "deep" slow-wave sleep and with a multifactorial origin. The relationship between NREM parasomnias and psychopathology has been a topic of ongoing debate, but a comprehensive and systematic perspective has been lacking. This systematic review, conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA-P) guidelines, aims to fill this gap in the literature. Databases including PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from their inception until March 2024. Only studies written in English were included. We selected case-control studies that reported either psychopathological or neurodevelopmental data in NREM sleep parasomnias, or NREM sleep parasomnia data across different mental disorders, across children and adults. Our review found that psychopathological and neurodevelopmental issues are common in NREM parasomnias, with a higher prevalence in affected patients compared to non-affected individuals. Additionally, NREM parasomnias are more common among patients with various psychopathological conditions than in the general population. Medications did not significantly bias these results. These findings suggest that psychopathological aspects should become a core focus of research and treatment strategies for NREM parasomnias.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.006
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSleep Medicine ReviewsSame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207