Use of heated humidification during nasal CPAP titration in obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nasal symptoms associated with the use of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) in obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) can adversely impact on patients' tolerance, acceptance and adherence to nCPAP therapy. Regular use of heated humidification is effective in alleviating these symptoms and improve patient comfort. In a randomised, parallel, double-blinded, controlled study, the present authors examined the use of heated humidification during a single night laboratory nCPAP titration in untreated OSA patients and its effect on nasal symptoms, nasal airway resistance (NAR), effective pressure and treatment tolerability and acceptance. Baseline characteristics of subjects (n=70) receiving placebo and humidification were (mean+/-sem): age 51.2+/-2.2 versus 50.6+/-1.6 yrs; body mass index 33.6+/-0.9 versus 35.2+/-0.9 kg.m-2; Epworth Sleepiness Scale 10.8+/-1.0 versus 11.3+/-0.7; and apnoea-hypopnoea index 43.5+/-4.6 versus 44.4+/-4.1 events.h-1. Total inspiratory NAR, before (0.36+/-0.09 (placebo) versus 0.33+/-0.09 kPa.L-1.s-1) and after nCPAP (0.47+/-0.11 versus 0.29+/-0.04 kPa.L-1.s-1) were not significantly different between the groups. No difference was found in the frequency and severity of nasopharyngeal symptoms, therapeutic pressure and subjective response to nCPAP. In conclusion, heated humidification during the initial nasal continuous positive airway pressure titration offers no additional benefit in nasal physiology, symptoms or subjective response to nasal continuous positive airway pressure, and, therefore, should not be routinely recommended.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".