Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1997 Wright and colleagues1 published a systematic review on the health effects of obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSA) and the effectiveness of treatment with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). They concluded that there was limited evidence of increased mortality or morbidity in patients with OSA, and that the evidence linking the condition to cardiovascular risk factors and motor vehicle crashes was conflicting and inconclusive. They also concluded that, although CPAP had been shown to improve daytime sleepiness, there were insufficient data to determine its effect on quality of life, morbidity or mortality. This review generated much controversy, but was a wake-up call to investigators in this field that all were not convinced that OSA was an important condition that always warranted treatment.2 At that time, our understanding of OSA and the impact of CPAP treatment was at a similar stage to where we were with cardiovascular risk factors such as systemic hypertension, diabetes and hypercholesterolaemia several decades ago. Considerable progress has been made since this review, and many of the issues which it raised have subsequently been addressed in papers published in Thorax . Systemic hypertension has been reported in epidemiological and hospital-based studies of patients with OSA, and is independent of obesity and the other common risk factors for hypertension which are also frequently present in this patient population. There have been conflicting data as to whether nasal CPAP can effectively reduce blood pressure in patients with OSA. Hui and associates3 performed a randomised controlled study in 56 patients with moderate to severe OSA and daytime sleepiness which showed that 12 weeks of therapeutic CPAP reduced 24 h mean and diastolic blood pressure by 3.8 mmHg and 3.5 mmHg, respectively. No …
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".