Sleep apnea, daytime somnolence, and idiopathic dizziness—A novel association
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To determine if an association exists between sleep apnea, daytime somnolence, and chronic idiopathic dizziness. STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study of new patients presenting to a tertiary neuro-otologic practice. A total of 46 subjects with idiopathic dizziness (ID), 20 positive controls with dizziness (benign paroxysmal positional vertigo [BPV]), and 69 negative controls with hearing loss (HL) but no dizziness were enrolled. METHODS: Participants who were patients diagnosed with the above conditions and who met all other inclusion criteria completed a sleep questionnaire and had a complete physical exam and investigations to establish or exclude a neuro-otologic diagnosis. They were subsequently evaluated for risk of symptomatic sleep disturbance based on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), the Berlin Questionnaire, and the Multivariable Apnea Risk Index (MAP). Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). RESULTS: There was no significant demographic difference among the groups in terms of age, sex, body mass index, neck size, alcohol consumption, or smoking. Using a cutoff of both 10 and 12 on the ESS, the ID were more likely to have significant daytime somnolence than the HL group, with a likelihood ratio (LR) of 7.8 for the ESS 12 score (P = .021) and 7.1 for the ESS 10 score (P = .029). Using the MAP score, a statistically significant difference between the ID group and both the BPV group (LR 3.99, P = .046) and the HL group (LR 5.46, P = .019) was found. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that a previously undescribed link between idiopathic dizziness, daytime somnolence, and sleep apnea might exist. Prospective investigation is warranted to determine whether treatment of any sleep issues resolves symptoms of idiopathic dizziness.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".