The effect of treating obstructive sleep apnea with positive airway pressure on depression and other subjective symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) frequently present with symptoms of depression and anxiety. The objective of this study is to determine if treatment with positive airway pressure (PAP) improves symptoms of depression and anxiety. A systematic review was conducted to identify clinical trials of PAP that contained a validated measure of depression severity. Meta-analysis was conducted for depression, anxiety, excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS), quality of life (QoL) and respiratory variables. The systematic review included 33 reports. Pre-post-test analysis of PAP showed a moderate effect size (Hedge's g, 95% CI) for depression 0.524 [0.401-0.647], but a low effect size compared to oral placebo (0.355 [0.187-0.524]) and no effect when compared to dental appliances (0.107 [-0.72-0.287]) and sham PAP (-0.049 [-0.292-0.194]). Anxiety, EDS, and QoL showed similar improvement in pre-post-test analysis, but a lack of superiority to dental appliances and sham PAP. PAP was superior to all comparators for respiratory variables. PAP has a moderate clinical effect on symptoms of depression and anxiety in OSA, but it is not superior to dental appliances or sham PAP. The improvement in subjective symptoms, such as depression and anxiety, may be mediated by patient expectations and contact with healthcare providers.
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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".