Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obstructive and central sleep apnea are common in heart failure, and may participate in its progression by exposing the heart to intermittent hypoxia, increased preload and afterload, sympathetic activation, and vascular endothelial dysfunction. Treatment of sleep apnea in patients with heart failure may reverse these detrimental effects, in addition to alleviating symptoms of sleep apnea. In patients with heart failure and obstructive sleep apnea, short-term randomized trials have demonstrated that continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) improves cardiac function, and lowers sympathetic activity and blood pressure. However, there are no data on whether treating obstructive sleep apnea in patients with heart failure improves morbidity and mortality. Various treatments have been tested in heart failure patients with central sleep apnea, particularly oxygen and CPAP. Both reduce the frequency of central respiratory events, and lower sympathetic activity. In addition, CPAP improves cardiac function. However, the largest randomized trial did not demonstrate any beneficial effect of CPAP on the rate of mortality and cardiac transplantation (32 vs. 32 events in the control and treatment groups, respectively; p=0.54), but ultimately lacked power to conclude with certainty whether CPAP has an effect on morbidity and mortality in such patients. Thus, although there are data to indicate that treating both obstructive and central sleep apnea in patients with heart failure improves cardiovascular function, larger randomized trials involving interventions such as oxygen, CPAP, or other forms of positive airway pressure will be required to determine whether treating these sleep-related breathing disorders reduces clinically important outcomes such as morbidity and mortality.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".