A Case—Control Study on Psychological Symptoms in Sleep Apnea-Hypopnea Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the psychological status of patients with sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (SAHS) and to evaluate the association of SAHS with psychological symptoms, using the Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90) scale. METHODS: The study comprised 30 SAHS patients (25 men, 5 women) and 30 matched, healthy control subjects. They all completed the SCL-90 and the Epworth Sleep Scale (ESS) and underwent a whole-night polysomnographic (PSG) examination. We used t-tests for group comparisons of nocturnal PSG characteristics, daytime sleepiness, and psychological symptoms. We employed Spearman's rank correlation analysis to indicate the effects of several nocturnal PSG variables (for example, total sleep time, percentage of wake at sleep, Apnea and Hypopnea Index [AHI], and oxygen desaturation) or subjective daytime sleepiness on psychological symptoms in SAHS. RESULTS: SAHS patients suffered from fragmented sleep and decreased arterial oxygen saturations, compared with healthy control subjects. The General Severity Index (GSI) of SCL-90 was significantly higher in SAHS patients than in healthy control subjects, as were measures of somatization, obsession-compulsion, depression, anxiety, and hostility (P < 0.05). The severity of psychological symptoms in SAHS patients was negatively related to total sleep time and percentage of stage 2 nonrapid eye movement (NREM) sleep; it was positively related to percentage of wake time after sleep onset, percentage of stage 1 NREM sleep, and ESS scores. CONCLUSION: In our study population, SAHS patients had decreased psychological well-being, which could be explained by fragmented sleep or excessive daytime sleepiness.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".