Short-term positive airway pressure therapy response in obstructive sleep apnea patients: impact of treatment on the quality of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to assess the compliance of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) patients of whom we planned positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy by using "Calgary Sleep Apnea Quality of Life Index (SAQLI)","Epworth Sleepiness Score (ESS)","OSAS Symptoms Questionnaire (OSQ)" and, to investigate the early effects of treatment on the quality of life. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 30 adult (male/female: 23/7) OSA patients who applied to Sleep Research Laboratory at the University Hospital, complaining of symptoms related to sleep and polysomnographically verified as OSAS with PAP therapy indications were included to the study. Their written consent were obtained. RESULTS: Characteristics of the patients, OSAS symptoms, ESS and SAQLI sores were recorded. After a month, on the second visit, ESS, SAQLI and OSAS symptoms questionnaire had been repeated. All the patients have routinely used PAP devices for a period of a month. PAP therapy provided significant improvements in excessive daytime sleepiness, symptoms questionnaire and SAQLI scores (p< 0.001). There was a significant correlation between apnea hypopnea index (AHI) score and the improvements in emotional functioning (r = -0.374, p= 0.045). CONCLUSION: We concluded that the OSA patients can have remarkable benefits from PAP therapy during the early treatment period. This study increased the awareness of the patients about their illness and their perceived benefits related to PAP treatment. Emotional functioning improved prominantly as the disease's severity increased.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".