Role of nocturnal rostral fluid shift in the pathogenesis of obstructive and central sleep apnoea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is common in the general population and increases the risk of motor vehicle accidents due to hypersomnolence from sleep disruption, and risk of cardiovascular diseases owing to repetitive hypoxia, sympathetic nervous system activation, and systemic inflammation. In contrast, central sleep apnoea (CSA) is rare in the general population. Although their pathogenesis is multifactorial, the prevalence of both OSA and CSA is increased in patients with fluid retaining states, especially heart failure, where they are associated with increased mortality risk. This observation suggests that fluid retention may contribute to the pathogenesis of both OSA and CSA. According to this hypothesis, during the day fluid accumulates in the intravascular and interstitial spaces of the legs due to gravity, and upon lying down at night redistributes rostrally, again owing to gravity. Some of this fluid may accumulate in the neck, increasing tissue pressure and causing the upper airway to narrow, thereby increasing its collapsibility and predisposing to OSA. In heart failure patients, with increased rostral fluid shift, fluid may additionally accumulate in the lungs, provoking hyperventilation and hypocapnia, driving below the apnoea threshold, leading to CSA. This review article will explore mechanisms by which overnight rostral fluid shift, and its prevention, can contribute to the pathogenesis and therapy of sleep apnoea.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".