Sleep disordered breathing in women of childbearing age & during pregnancy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) affects 11 per cent of pre-menopausal women though it often remains undetected. Women may present differently than men, and the classic findings of snoring, witnessed apnoeas and sleepiness may not be observed. Factors which predispose to OSA include polycystic ovarian syndrome, obesity, retromicrognathia, and hypothyroidism. OSA may contribute to neurocognitive dysfunction, depression, hypertension and metabolic syndrome. Emerging evidence indicates that snoring and OSA increase during pregnancy. For normal women with normotensive, low-risk pregnancies the prevalence of OSA is very low. Among normotensive pregnant women with high risk pregnancies, the prevalence of OSA is high and is even higher among those with gestational hypertension/preeclampsia during pregnancy. Incident snoring, which is a marker for OSA, is associated with an increased risk of developing gestational hypertension. Recent studies indicate that OSA per se is an independent risk factor for gestational hypertension/pre-eclampsia and may contribute to other poor obstetrical outcomes. The diagnostic test of choice for OSA is a polysomnography with electroencephalogram. Milder degree of disease than what is usually considered clinically significant among men or non-pregnant women appears to be relevant for foetomaternal outcomes. There seems to be benefit for blood pressure control to treating even milder degrees of OSA with CPAP, both acutely and over the 9 months of pregnancy. Chronic hypertensive women should be strongly considered for diagnosis and treatment of OSA prior to or beginning as early as possible in pregnancy to help maintain blood pressure control. Increasing awareness of OSA among maternal health care providers is important given the potential benefits for pregnancy and other health-related outcomes associated with identification and treatment of OSA.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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; 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".