Do patients with obstructive sleep apnea have clinically significant proteinuria?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Previous studies report a high prevalence of proteinuria in patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). This common syndrome may therefore be an important cause ofproteinuria and renal failure in the general population. This study was undertaken to assess the prevalence of proteinuria among OSAS patients, and to identify the factors associated with urine protein excretion in these patients. METHODS: Overnight polysomnography, urine protein to creatinine ratio (PTCR), body mass index (BMI), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and hematocrit were assessed prospectively in 224 patients referred for evaluation of suspected OSAS. Sleep apnea was defined as apnea-hypopnea score (AHS) > or = 5 events/hour. Proteinuria was defined as PTCR > 0.2 mg/mg. RESULTS: Sleep apnea was present in 143 subjects (63.8%), and proteinuria in 10 (4.5%). The highest PTCR was 0.677 mg/mg. PTCR and AHS were weakly correlated (r = 0.12, p = 0.08). PTCR correlated (alpha = 0.05) with lowest oxygen saturation (r = -0.18, p = < 0.01), time spent with oxygen saturation below 90% (r = 0.19, p = < 0.01), and BMI (r= 0. 17, p = < 0.01). The mean PTCR was similar in subjects with and without sleep apnea. Proteinuria was present in 7 of 143 (4.9%) subjects with AHS > or = 5 and 3 of 81 (3.7%) subjects with AHS < 5, a relative risk of 1.34, 95% CI (0.34, 5.32). Predictors of LogPTCR in multiple linear regression (model R2 - 0.104) were: AHS (< 5 or > or = 5), baseline oxygen saturation, sex, and MAP. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically significant proteinuria is uncommon in OSAS. The prevalence and severity of proteinuria are similar in both OSAS patients and patients without sleep-disordered breathing. Sleep apnea severity is weakly associated with urine protein excretion, related more to hypoxemia than to frequency of apneic events.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".