Sleep apnea in chronic heart failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: As heart failure continues to carry significant morbidity and mortality it is crucial to pursue new lines of therapy. Addressing sleep apnea, which is highly prevalent in these patients, offers just such an avenue. We discuss how sleep apnea may contribute to the propagation of heart failure, and how understanding its effects and reversing these effects might benefit heart failure patients. RECENT FINDINGS: Continuous positive airway pressure ventilation, atrial pacing, and chronic resynchronization therapy have all been studied in sleep apnea. Some of these therapies have shown benefits in heart failure. This offers hope for improved outcomes, particularly with respect to mortality. Delineating how these therapies affect the heart's energetics and metabolism may also provide further understanding of the relationship between sleep apnea and heart failure. SUMMARY: As both obstructive and central sleep apnea are highly prevalent in heart failure, treating these patients with continuous positive airway pressure, atrial pacing, or chronic resynchronization therapy may offer morbidity and mortality benefits. Much remains to be understood about the relationship between sleep apnea and heart failure, and understanding the interaction between the two at both the myocardial and clinical level is crucial.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".