Sleep Apnea, Hypertension, and the Effects of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sleep apnea is being studied as a risk factor for hypertension. This observational chart review was conducted to determine the long-term effects of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment on blood pressure (BP) in a sample of sleep apnea patients from urban and rural populations. METHODS: This study was conducted using data from 180 clinical charts from 1995 to 2002. Patients were identified as hypertensive or normotensive by their initial BP values before they were diagnosed with sleep apnea and were also reviewed after the use of CPAP. RESULTS: Of the patients diagnosed with sleep apnea, 32% were found to have hypertension (mean systolic BP: 164.4 +/- 20.3 mmHg; mean diastolic BP: 96.9 +/- 5.3 mmHg). The average use of CPAP was 12.1 +/- 22.4 months. The hypertensive group showed a significant reduction in BP with CPAP use: systolic BP dropped by an average of 11.2 mmHg (P < .001) and diastolic BP dropped by an average of 5.9 mmHg (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm that frequency of hypertension is increased among sleep apnea patients. The long-term use of CPAP in hypertensive patients with sleep apnea is associated with a significant decrease in BP to levels that considerably decrease cardiovascular risk.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".