Is frequent nocturnal sweating a symptom of obstructive sleep apnea?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: To estimate the prevalence and characteristics of frequent nocturnal sweating in subjects with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) compared to the general population and to evaluate possible changes with positive airway pressure (PAP) treatment. Methods: The Icelandic Sleep Apnea Cohort consisted of 822 newly diagnosed OSA subjects, referred for treatment with PAP. Of these, 700 subjects were also assessed at a 2 year follow-up. The control group consisted of 703 randomly selected general population subjects. Subjective reporting of nocturnal sweating was assessed on a frequency scale of 1 - 5: (1) never or very seldom, (2) less than once a week, (3) once to twice a week, (4) three to five times a week, (5) every night or almost every night. All OSA patients had a type 3 sleep study. Full PAP treatment was defined objectively as use ≥4 hrs./day and ≥5 days/week. Results: Frequent nocturnal sweating (≥ 3x a week) was reported by 31.1% of the OSA cohort vs. 11.1% of the general population cohort (p < 0.0001). This difference remained significant after adjustment for demographic factors (age, gender, body mass index, current smoking, hypertension, diabetes and cardiovascular disease). Nocturnal sweating was related to younger age, presence of cardiovascular disease and hypertension, subjective sleepiness, and insomnia symptoms. The prevalence of frequent nocturnal sweating decreased with full PAP treatment (from 33.2% to 11.5%, p < 0.003 compared to the change in non-users). Conclusion: The prevalence of frequent nocturnal sweating was three-fold higher in untreated OSA patients than in the general population and decreased to general population levels with successful PAP therapy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".