MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1820963502 · doi:10.1164/rccm.201507-1472rr

The Different Clinical Faces of Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA), OSA in Older Adults as a Distinctly Different Physiological Phenotype, and the Impact of OSA on Cardiovascular Events after Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery

2015· letter· en· W1820963502 on OpenAlexaff
Clodagh M. Ryan, Tetyana Kendzerska, Kelly Wilton, Owen D. Lyons

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2015
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObstructive sleep apneaCardiologyInternal medicineArteryCoronary artery bypass surgerySleep apnea

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Failure to appreciate the heterogeneity of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) may impede its clinical recognition and management (1, 2). Using cluster analysis from a large, cross-sectional, clinically based cohort of adults with moderate-to-severe OSA, representative of the population of Iceland, Ye and colleagues identified subgroups with distinct combinations of symptoms (1). Included in the analysis were 822 subjects who were positive airway pressure naive. These were predominantly middle-aged obese males with severe OSA. Three distinct clusters were identified: (1) a “disturbed sleep” cluster (33%) with the highest probability of experiencing insomnia-related symptoms such as difficulty with sleep initiation and maintenance, nocturnal and early awakenings, nocturnal sweating, restless sleep, restless leg symptoms, and symptom of gasping for breath; (2) a “minimally symptomatic” cluster (25%) with the highest probability of feeling rested on awaking; and (3) an “excessive daytime sleepiness” cluster (42%) with a higher probability of daytime hypersomnolence (as measured by the Epworth Sleepiness Scale), the presence of daytime sleepiness-related symptoms (such as falling asleep unintentionally during the day, dozing off while driving), and symptoms of witnessed apneas and loud snoring. The identification of the “disturbed sleep” group in this study, underscores the presence of OSA in those with comorbid insomnia, suggesting that both the screening for OSA in those with insomnia as well as treatment with combination therapies (e.g., positive airway pressure and cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia) may be beneficial in this population (3). Furthermore, the probabilities of having comorbid hypertension and cardiovascular disease were highest in the “minimally symptomatic” but lowest in the “excessive daytime sleepiness” group. The authors proposed that a potentially longer lag time between initial symptoms and diagnosis in minimally symptomatic compared with symptomatic patients may lead to a longer duration of exposure to untreated OSA and, thus, a higher probability of developing comorbidities. However, the crosssectional design of this study makes it impossible to infer causality, and as with any observational study, there are limitations related to unmeasured confounders such as depression or cognitive impairment. In addition, the study results are pertinent to the specific patient group evaluated, and extrapolation to other OSA cohorts may be inapplicable. Despite no statistical or clinically meaningful difference observed in sex, age, body mass index, apnea–hypopnea index, oxygen desaturation index, or minimal oxygen saturation among the three clusters, these important variables may account for different clinical presentations of OSA. Lastly, the use of type 3 portable monitors may have contributed to the underestimation of the apnea–hypopnea index in those with insomnia. As such, further validation in independent cohorts including a broader demographic profile and OSA severity is needed. Regardless of limitations, this study serves to highlight and increase physician awareness of the heterogeneity of OSA clinical presentation. It also provides clinicians with some guidance as to the differing OSA phenotypic presentations. In so doing it may facilitate early identification of OSA and lead to the development of personalized therapies. This may be of particular importance in those who are less symptomatic or who experience less common symptoms of OSA, although the need for treatment of minimally symptomatic patients remains uncertain at this time (4, 5). n

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care MedicineSame topicObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchFrench-language works237,207