MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974884284 · doi:10.1161/01.cir.102.1.61

Effects of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Heart Failure Patients With and Without Cheyne-Stokes Respiration

2000· article· en· W1974884284 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCheyne–Stokes respirationHeart failureCardiologyInternal medicineContinuous positive airway pressureRespirationBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) improves cardiac function in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) who also have Cheyne-Stokes respiration and central sleep apnea (CSR-CSA). However, the effects of CPAP in CHF patients without CSR-CSA have not been tested, and the long-term effects of this treatment on clinical cardiovascular outcomes are unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a randomized, controlled trial in which 66 patients with CHF (29 with and 37 without CSR-CSA) were randomized to either a group that received CPAP nightly or to a control group. Change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from baseline to 3 months and the combined mortality-cardiac transplantation rate over the median 2.2-year follow-up period were compared between the CPAP-treated and control groups. For the entire group of patients, CPAP had no significant effect on LVEF, but it was associated with a 60% relative risk reduction (95% confidence interval, 2% to 64%) in mortality-cardiac transplantation rate in patients who complied with CPAP therapy. Stratified analysis of patients with and without CSR-CSA revealed that those with CSR-CSA experienced both a significant improvement in LVEF at 3 months and a relative risk reduction of 81% (95% confidence interval, 26% to 95%) in the mortality-cardiac transplantation rate of those who used CPAP. CPAP had no significant effect on either of these outcomes in patients without CSR-CSA. CONCLUSIONS: CPAP improves cardiac function in CHF patients with CSR-CSA but not in those without it. Although not definitive, our findings also suggest that CPAP can reduce the combined mortality-cardiac transplantation rate in those CHF patients with CSR-CSA who comply with therapy.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.233 · 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