Sibutramine<i>versus</i>continuous positive airway pressure in obese obstructive sleep apnoea patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy of 1 yr of sibutramine-induced weight loss versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment on sleep-disordered breathing, cardiac autonomic function and systemic blood pressure in obese patients with obstructive sleep apnoea. Subjects with a body mass index of > or =30 kg.m(-2) without previous treatment for obstructive sleep apnoea underwent either sibutramine (n = 22) or CPAP (n = 18) treatment for 1 yr. Sibutramine induced a 5.4+/-1.4 kg decrease in body weight compared to the CPAP group, in which no changes in anthropometric variables were observed. The CPAP treatment improved all sleep and respiratory variables, whereas sibutramine-induced weight loss improved only nocturnal arterial oxygen saturation profile. Only CPAP treatment improved night-time systolic and diastolic blood pressure and 24-h and daytime ambulatory diastolic blood pressure. Sibutramine-induced weight loss had no impact on indices of heart rate variability, whereas CPAP treatment increased daytime time domain indices. CPAP treatment for 1 yr had beneficial impacts on nocturnal breathing disturbances, and improved nocturnal oxygenation, night-time systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and daytime cardiac parasympathetic modulation. Sibutramine did not improve sleep-disordered breathing, systemic blood pressure or heart rate variability. There were no adverse effects, such as increment in blood pressure or arrhythmias, associated with this treatment regimen.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".