MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Obstructive Sleep Apnea Is Highly Prevalent and Correlates With Impaired Glycemic Control in Consecutive Patients With the Metabolic Syndrome

2009· article· en· W2007616848 on OpenAlexaff
Luciano F. Drager, Eduardo Queiroz, Heno Ferreira Lopes, Pedro R. Genta, E M Krieger, Geraldo Lorenzi‐Filho

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the CardioMetabolic Syndrome · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsHypertension Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObstructive sleep apneaGlycemicPolysomnographyBody mass indexInternal medicineSleep apneaHypopneaApneaMetabolic syndromeHemoglobinCardiologyObesityInsulin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and the metabolic syndrome (MS) are independently associated with increased cardiovascular risk. The objective of the present study was to determine the prevalence of OSA among consecutive patients with MS and to determine whether OSA is associated with impaired glycemic control. Fifty consecutive patients with a recent diagnosis of MS and no previous diagnosis of OSA underwent a polysomnography and anthropometric and laboratory measurements. The prevalence of OSA (apnea-hypopnea index >or=15 events per hour of sleep) was 68% and in the same range of all other individual components of MS. Moreover, OSA was associated with increased levels of glucose (P=.03) and glycosylated hemoglobin (P=.03) but not with body mass index (P=.30). Glycosylated hemoglobin was independently associated with glucose (P<.001) and apnea-hypopnea index (P=.03). The prevalence of OSA is in the same range as all the individual components of MS and is independently associated with impaired glycemic control.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.219 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations57
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the CardioMetabolic SyndromeSame topicObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchFrench-language works237,207