Obstructive sleep apnoea in the elderly: role of continuous positive airway pressure treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Almost all the information about the effect of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) comes from clinical trials involving only middle-aged patients. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of CPAP treatment in elderly patients with severe OSA on clinical, quality-of-life and neurocognitive spheres. We performed an open-label, randomised, multicentre clinical trial in a consecutive clinical cohort of 224 elderly (≥70 years old) patients with confirmed severe OSA (apnoea-hypopnea index ≥30) randomised to receive CPAP (n=115) or no CPAP (n=109) for 3 months. A sleep study was performed by either full polysomnography or respiratory polygraphy. CPAP titration was performed by an autoCPAP device. The primary endpoint was quality of life (Quebec Sleep Questionnaire) and secondary endpoints included sleep-related symptoms, presence of anxiety/depression, office-based blood pressure and some neurocognitive tests. The mean±sd age was 75.5±3.9 years. The CPAP group achieved a greater improvement in all quality-of-life domains (p<0.001; effect size: 0.41-0.98), sleep-related symptoms (p<0.001; effect size 0.31-0.91) as well as anxiety (p=0.016; effect size 0.51) and depression (p<0.001; effect size: 0.28) indexes and some neurocognitive tests (digit symbol test (p=0.047; effect size: 0.20) and Trail Making Test A (p=0.029; effect size: 0.44)) in an intention-to-treat analysis. In conclusion, CPAP treatment resulted in an improvement in quality of life, sleep-related symptoms, anxiety and depression indexes and some neurocognitive aspects in elderly people with severe OSA.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".