Refractory hypertension and sleep apnoea: effect of CPAP on blood pressure and baroreflex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was undertaken to determine whether abolition of obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) by continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) could reduce blood pressure (BP) in patients with refractory hypertension. In 11 refractory hypertensive patients with OSA, the acute effects of CPAP on nocturnal BP were studied during sleep and its longer term effects on 24-h ambulatory BP after 2 months. During a single night's application, CPAP abolished OSA and reduced systolic BP in stage 2 sleep from 138.3 +/- 6.8 to 126.0 +/- 6.3 mmHg. There was also a trend towards a reduction in average diastolic BP (from 77.7 +/- 4.5 to 72.9 +/- 4.5). CPAP usage for 2 months was accompanied by an 11.0 +/- 4.4 mmHg reduction in 24-h systolic BP. In addition, both the nocturnal and daytime components of systolic BP fell significantly by 14.4 +/- 4.4 and 9.3 +/- 3.9 mmHg, respectively. Diastolic BP was reduced significantly at night by 7.8 +/- 3.0 mmHg. In patients with refractory hypertension, acute abolition of obstructive sleep apnoea by continuous positive airway pressure reduces nocturnal blood pressure. These data also suggest that continuous positive airway pressure may reduce nocturnal and daytime systolic blood pressure chronically. Randomised trials are needed to confirm the latter results.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".