Evaluation of Sham-CPAP as a Placebo in CPAP Intervention Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of sham-continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment as a placebo intervention. DESIGN AND SETTING: Analysis of polysomnograms performed in fixed order without sham-CPAP and on the first night of the sham-CPAP intervention in participants in the CPAP Apnea Trial North American Program (CATNAP), a randomized, placebo controlled trial evaluating the effects of CPAP treatment on daytime function in adults with newly diagnosed mild to moderate obstructive sleep apnea (apnea hypopnea index (AHI) 5-30). PARTICIPANTS: The first 104 CATNAP participants randomized to the sham-CPAP intervention arm. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Compared to the polysomnographic measures without sham-CPAP, the study on the first night with sham-CPAP had statistically significant differences that suggested a decrease in sleep quality: decreased sleep efficiency, increased arousal index, increased time in stage 1 NREM sleep, and prolonged latency to REM sleep. However, all of these differences had a relatively small effect size. Compared to the polysomnogram without sham-CPAP, the number of hypopneas on the sham-CPAP polysomnogram was significantly increased and the number of apneas significantly decreased. Relatively minor differences in AHI with and without sham-CPAP were present and were dependent on the criteria used to score hypopneas. CONCLUSION: Comparison of polysomnograms with and without sham-CPAP revealed differences that, although statistically significant, were small in magnitude and had relatively low effect sizes suggesting minimal clinical significance. The results support the use of sham-CPAP as a placebo intervention in trials evaluating the effects of CPAP treatment in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: This paper was a secondary analysis of clinical trial data. CATNAP: CPAP Apnea Trial North American Program, the trial from which the data were obtained, is registered with clinicaltrial.gov. Registration #NCT00089752.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".