Impact of CPAP on asthmatic patients with obstructive sleep apnoea
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment on the airway responsiveness of asthmatic subjects with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) has scarcely been studied. A prospective study was performed comparing the changes in airway responsiveness and quality of life in stable asthmatic OSA patients, before and 6 weeks after their nocturnal CPAP treatment. A total of 20 subjects (11 males and nine females) participated in the study. With the nocturnal CPAP treatment, the apnoea/hypopnoea index dropped from 48.1 +/- 23.6 x h(-1) to 2.6 +/- 2.5 x h(-1). There were no significant changes in airway responsiveness after CPAP treatment (provocative concentration causing a 20% fall in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1); PC(20) 2.5 mg x mL(-1) (1.4-4.5)) compared with baseline (PC(20) 2.2 mg x mL(-1) (1.3-3.5)). There was no significant change in FEV(1) either. However, the asthma quality of life of the subjects improved from 5.0 +/- 1.2 at baseline to 5.8 +/- 0.9 at the end of the study. In conclusion, nocturnal continuous positive airway pressure treatment did not alter airway responsiveness or forced expiratory volume in one second in subjects with stable mild-to-moderate asthma and newly diagnosed obstructive sleep apnoea. However, nocturnal continuous positive airway pressure treatment did improve asthma quality of life.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 it