The acute impact of continuous positive airway pressure on nasal resistance: a randomized controlled comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subjective nasal obstruction is common among users of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). The aim of this study was to measure the acute effect of CPAP on nasal resistance and nasal symptoms in awake normal subjects. Twenty-four healthy CPAP-naive adults [8 men, 16 women; mean age 30 yr (SD 14)] underwent a randomized controlled crossover study comparing nasal CPAP (8 cmH(2)O) for 6 h on one occasion and the control condition (nasal mask without CPAP) on the other. Nasal resistance measurements (posterior active rhinometry) before and after the test exposure were similar on both test days. Nasal resistance during CPAP exposure [2.04 cmH(2)O.l(-1).s (SD 0.72)] was significantly lower than that of the control [2.67 cmH(2)O.l(-1).s (SD 1.07)]: mean difference 0.66 cmH(2)O.l(-1).s, 95% confidence interval 0.19-1.13 cmH(2)O.l(-1).s. The gradient in pressure from CPAP mask to posterior naris during CPAP exposure varied from 1.6 to 2 cmH(2)O but was not significantly different between time points. Subjective nasal symptom scores and peak nasal inspiratory flow rates did not change significantly on either test day. We conclude that in awake CPAP-naive normal subjects, acute CPAP exposure is associated with a reduction in nasal resistance compared with the control condition, but it is not associated with an immediate post-CPAP change in subjective or objective nasal resistance.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".