Cognitive Function and Sleep Related Breathing Disorders in a Healthy Elderly Population: the Synapse Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Sleep related breathing disorders (SRBD) are risk factors for cognitive dysfunction in middle-aged subjects, but this association has not been observed in the elderly. We assess the impact of SRBD on cognitive performance in a large cohort of healthy elderly subjects. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study examining the association between subjective memory test, neuropsychological battery testing and SRBD in the elderly. SETTING: Community-based sample in home and research clinical settings. PARTICIPANTS: 827 subjects, 58.5% women, aged 68 y at study entry, participated in the study. All were free of previously diagnosed SRBD, coronary heart disease, and neurological disorders, including stroke and dementia. Clinical interview, neurological assessment, polygraphy, and extensive cognitive testing were conducted for all participants. INTERVENTION: N/A. MEASUREMENT AND RESULTS: SRBD (apnea-hypopnea index [AHI] > 15 events/h) was diagnosed in 445 (53%) subjects, 167 (37%) of them with AHI > 30. Minimal daytime sleepiness was found in the group; 9.2% of the population had an Epworth Sleepiness Scale score > 10. No significant association was found between AHI, nocturnal hypoxemia, and cognitive scores. Comparison of mild vs severe cases showed a trend toward lower cognitive scores with AHI > 30, affecting delayed recall and Stroop test. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of undiagnosed SRBD on cognitive function appeared quite limited in a generally older healthy population, and only slightly affected severe cases. The implication of undiagnosed SRBD on the cognitive impairment in elderly subjects remains hypothetical and needs to be prospectively studied.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".