Cardiac resynchronization therapy for the treatment of sleep apnoea: a meta-analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Sleep apnoea (SA) is a common problem among congestive heart failure (CHF) patients. Evidence has shown that cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces morbidity and mortality associated with CHF. The aim of this paper was to review studies evaluating the reduction of the Apnoea-Hypopnoea Index (AHI) in patients with SA after treatment with CRT and to perform a meta-analysis to estimate the true effect of CRT on SA. METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic electronic literature search was conducted in Medline and Embase to identify studies reporting on the effects of CRT on SA. A hand search of five major cardiology societies was performed to identify any unpublished studies through structured abstracts submitted to conference proceedings. To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to include a comparison of CRT vs. no pacing and use AHI as an outcome. Non-English studies were excluded. Nine manuscripts and five abstracts were identified for review. Six manuscripts and three abstracts were included in meta-analysis, which included 170 patients. After treatment with CRT, a significant reduction in AHI was found in patients with central sleep apnoea (CSA) with a mean reduction of -13.05 (CI -16.74 to -9.36; P < 0.00001) but not in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea (13.32; CI -9.04 to 2.39; P = 0.25). CONCLUSION: Cardiac resynchronization therapy reduces the severity of SA. Major effects are seen in patients with CSA. The presence of SA may be an additional consideration when deciding on which heart failure patients will receive CRT.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it