Chemical Control Stability in Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of chemical control instability in the pathogenesis of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is not clear. We studied 32 patients with OSA during sleep while their upper airway was stabilized with continuous positive airway pressure. Twelve patients had repetitive OSA whenever they were asleep, regardless of body position or sleep stage, and were classified as having severe OSA (apnea-hypopnea index [AHI] = 88 +/- 19). The remaining 20 patients had sporadic OSA or repetitive OSA for only part of the time (mild/moderate OSA; AHI = 27 +/- 16). Susceptibility to periodic breathing (PB) was assessed by gradually increasing controller gain, using proportional assist ventilation. The increase in loop gain (LG) at each assist level was quantified from the ratio of assisted tidal volume (VT) to the VT obtained during single-breath reloading tests (VT amplification factor [VTAF]). Nine of 12 patients with severe OSA developed PB, with recurrent central apneas, whereas only six of 20 patients in the mild/moderate group developed PB (p < 0.02). This difference was observed despite the subjection of the mild/moderate group to greater amplification of LG; the highest values of VTAF in the mild/moderate and severe groups were 2.7 +/- 1.0 and 1.9 +/- 0.7, respectively (p < 0.01). We conclude that the chemical control system is more unstable in patients with severe OSA than in patients with milder OSA. We speculate that this may contribute to the severity of OSA, at least in some patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".