MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409013962 · doi:10.1212/cpj.0000000000200461

Suicidal Ideation and Sleep Disturbances Among People With Huntington Disease

2025· article· en· W4409013962 on OpenAlexafffund
Idaira Rodríguez Santana, Samuel Frank, Tiago Mestre, Astri Arnesen, Jamie Hamilton, Hayley Hubberstey, Michaela Winkelmann, Elena Hernandez-Jimenez, Jeff Frimpter, Ricardo E. Dolmetsch, Talaha M Ali

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology Clinical Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchParkinson CanadaPhysicians' Services Incorporated FoundationNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesSunovionBoston Scientific CorporationGenentechInternational Parkinson and Movement Disorder SocietyCHDI FoundationSage TherapeuticsBiogen
KeywordsSuicidal ideationHuntington's diseasePsychiatrySleep (system call)PsychologyDiseaseIdeationClinical psychologyMedicineSuicide preventionPoison controlMedical emergencyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Objectives: Suicidal ideation and sleep disturbances are more common among people with Huntington disease (PwHD) than otherwise healthy peers; however, the scope and magnitude of these challenges are not well understood. This study evaluated suicidal thoughts and sleep disturbances among PwHD in Europe and the United States using data from the Huntington's Disease Burden of Illness (HDBOI) study. Methods: tests. Results: = 0.000]). Discussion: The HDBOI study showed a substantial burden of suicidal ideation and sleep disturbances among PwHD, which tended to worsen with disease severity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurology Clinical PracticeSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207