Cheyne-Stokes Respiration in Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Central sleep apnea (CSA) and Cheyne-Stokes respiration have been reported in association with stroke, but their pathophysiologic correlates have not been well described. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypotheses that (1) CSA in patients with stroke is associated with nocturnal hypocapnia and (2) in those stroke patients with CSA and with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction, periodic breathing (PB) will have a Cheyne-Stokes respiration pattern in which cycle duration is greater than in those without LV systolic dysfunction. METHODS: We prospectively performed polysomnography and echocardiography in 93 patients with stroke. CSA was defined as central apneas and hypopneas occurring at a rate of 10 or more per hour of sleep. In patients with CSA, we compared PB cycle duration between those with normal and impaired LV systolic function (LV ejection fraction [LVEF] > 40% and < or = 40%, respectively). RESULTS: CSA was found in 19% of subjects who had lower nocturnal transcutaneous PCO2 (39.3 +/- 0.9 vs. 42.8 +/- 0.8 mmHg, p = 0.015) and a higher prevalence of LVEF of 40% or less (22 vs. 5%, p = 0.043) than stroke patients without CSA. There was no significant difference in stroke location or type between the two groups. In patients with CSA, those with LVEF of 40% or less had a longer PB cycle than those with an LVEF of more than 40% (66.6 +/- 5.6 vs. 46.6 +/- 2.9 seconds, p = 0.006), but had no symptoms of heart failure. CONCLUSION: In patients with stroke, CSA is associated with hypocapnia and occult LV systolic dysfunction but is not related to the location or type of stroke. The presence of LV systolic dysfunction is associated with a Cheyne-Stokes pattern of hyperpnea.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".