MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130637800 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa051001

Continuous Positive Airway Pressure for Central Sleep Apnea and Heart Failure

2005· article· en· W2130637800 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoDalhousie UniversityUniversité LavalUniversity of CalgaryMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineContinuous positive airway pressureCentral sleep apneaHeart failureSleep apneaAirwayApneaPositive airway pressureCardiologyCheyne–Stokes respirationRespiratory failureSleep (system call)Obstructive sleep apneaAnesthesiaIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePolysomnography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Canadian Continuous Positive Airway Pressure for Patients with Central Sleep Apnea and Heart Failure trial tested the hypothesis that continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) would improve the survival rate without heart transplantation of patients who have central sleep apnea and heart failure. METHODS: After medical therapy was optimized, 258 patients who had heart failure (mean age [+/-SD], 63+/-10 years; ejection fraction, 24.5+/-7.7 percent) and central sleep apnea (number of episodes of apnea and hypopnea per hour of sleep, 40+/-16) were randomly assigned to receive CPAP (128 patients) or no CPAP (130 patients) and were followed for a mean of two years. During follow-up, sleep studies were conducted and measurements of the ejection fraction, exercise capacity, quality of life, and neurohormones were obtained. RESULTS: Three months after undergoing randomization, the CPAP group, as compared with the control group, had greater reductions in the frequency of episodes of apnea and hypopnea (-21+/-16 vs. -2+/-18 per hour, P<0.001) and in norepinephrine levels (-1.03+/-1.84 vs. 0.02+/-0.99 nmol per liter, P=0.009), and greater increases in the mean nocturnal oxygen saturation (1.6+/-2.8 percent vs. 0.4+/-2.5 percent, P<0.001), ejection fraction (2.2+/-5.4 percent vs. 0.4+/-5.3 percent, P=0.02), and the distance walked in six minutes (20.0+/-55 vs. -0.8+/-64.8 m, P=0.016). There were no differences between the control group and the CPAP group in the number of hospitalizations, quality of life, or atrial natriuretic peptide levels. An early divergence in survival rates without heart transplantation favored the control group, but after 18 months the divergence favored the CPAP group, yet the overall event rates (death and heart transplantation) did not differ (32 vs. 32 events, respectively; P=0.54). CONCLUSIONS: Although CPAP attenuated central sleep apnea, improved nocturnal oxygenation, increased the ejection fraction, lowered norepinephrine levels, and increased the distance walked in six minutes, it did not affect survival. Our data do not support the use of CPAP to extend life in patients who have central sleep apnea and heart failure.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it