Obstructive sleep apnea: management considerations in psychiatric patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychiatric disorders and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) are often comorbid. However, there is limited information on the impact of psychotropic medications on OSA symptoms, on how to manage psychiatric pharmacotherapy in patients presenting with OSA, or on the effectiveness and challenges of OSA treatments in patients with comorbid mental illness. As such, the objective of this article is to provide an overview of some epidemiological aspects of OSA and treatment considerations in the management of OSA in individuals with comorbid psychiatric disorders. Predefined keywords were used to search for relevant literature in electronic databases. Data show that OSA is particularly prevalent in patients with psychiatric disorders. The medical care that patients with these comorbidities require can be challenging, as some of the psychiatric medications used by these patients may exacerbate OSA symptoms. As such, continuous positive airway pressure continues to be the first-line treatment, even in patients with psychiatric comorbidity. However, more controlled studies are required, particularly to determine continuous positive airway pressure compliance in patients with mental illness, the impact of treating OSA on psychiatric symptoms, and the impact of the use of psychotropic medications on OSA symptoms.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".