Efficacy of daytime continuous positive airway pressure titration in severe obstructive sleep apnoea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate manual nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) titration during daytime polysomnography compared with conventional overnight titration for patients with severe obstructive sleep apnoea. Thirty-two patients who underwent daytime titration were retrospectively matched (for age, sex, body mass index and apnoea/hypopnoea index (AHI)) to a group titrated overnight during the same period. Successful titration was defined as the identification of the nCPAP level (effective nCPAP (Peff)) required to eliminate respiratory events during all sleep stages. After 3 months of therapy on nCPAP at Peff, nCPAP utilization history was obtained and a group of patients underwent a repeat polysomnogram (PSG) and completed a follow-up Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score. Initial titration was successful in 91% of daytime patients and 91% of overnight patients. The success of daytime titration was not related to diagnostic AHI or ESS score. Subjective nCPAP utilization was statistically similar in both groups. On the follow-up PSG, there were no significant differences between daytime (n=11) and overnight (n=11) patients in measures of sleep quality or respiratory disturbance. Both groups demonstrated similar and significant improvements in ESS score. These findings suggest that the effective nasal continuous positive airway pressure can be accurately established during daytime titration in a substantial proportion of severe, symptomatic obstructive sleep apnoea patients.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".