Health-related quality of life in obstructive sleep apnoea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The identification of the areas of quality of life (QoL) most likely to be affected by obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) would be an important step in the evaluation of the impact of the disease and its treatment modalities. The objective of this study was to describe the impact of OSA on patients' QoL. A list of 186 items potentially related to QoL of patients with OSA was constructed. From this list, consecutive patients were asked, at the time of the diagnosis, to identify the most significant items and to grade their importance on a 5-point scale. The item impact was determined from the proportion of patients who identified it as important, and the mean importance score attributed to this item (impact score=frequency x importance). One hundred patients (82 male; mean age: 51 yrs) were interviewed. The items having the most important impact on QoL clustered into five domains: 1) daytime symptoms; 2) nocturnal symptoms; 3) limitation of activities; 4) emotions; and 5) interpersonal relationships. The impact of obstructive sleep apnoea on quality of life is not limited to excessive daytime sleepiness. Obstructive sleep apnoea significantly contributes to the impairment of all domains of what is usually referred to as "health-related quality of life".
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".