Phenotyping interindividual variability in obstructive sleep apnoea response to temazepam using ventilatory chemoreflexes during wakefulness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Centrally active agents have a variable impact in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) that is unexplained. How to phenotype the individual OSA response is clinically important, as it may help to identify who will be at risk of respiratory depression and who will benefit from a centrally active agent. Based on loop gain theory, we hypothesized that OSA patients with higher central chemosensitivity have higher breathing instability following the use of a hypnosedative, temazepam. In 20 men with OSA in a double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over trial we tested the polysomnographically (PSG) measured effects of temazepam 10 mg versus placebo on sleep apnoea. Treatment nights were at least 1 week apart. Ventilatory chemoreflexes were also measured during wakefulness in each subject. The patients (mean ± standard deviation; 44 ± 12 years) had predominantly mild-to-moderate OSA [baseline apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI) = 16.8 ± 14.1]. Patients' baseline awake central chemosensitivity correlated significantly with both the change of SpO₂ nadir between temazepam and placebo (r = -0.468, P = 0.038) and oxygen desaturation index (ODI; r = 0.485, P = 0.03), but not with the change of AHI (r = 0.18, P = 0.44). Peripheral chemosensitivity and ventilatory recruitment threshold were not correlated with the change of SpO₂ nadir, ODI or AHI (all P > 0.05). Mild-moderate OSA patients with higher awake central chemosensitivity had greater respiratory impairment during sleep with temazepam. Relatively simple daytime tests of respiratory control may provide a method of determining the effect of sedative-hypnotic medication on breathing during sleep in OSA patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".