Executive function in patients with obstructive sleep apnea treated with continuous positive airway pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is characterized by disrupted breathing and hypoxemia during sleep, daytime sleepiness, and changes in cognition and mood. One important question is regarding the reversibility of cognitive deficits after treatment with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). Here, we report the outcomes of CPAP treatment as measured by tests of attention and executive function. Thirty-seven individuals with moderate to severe OSA and compliant on CPAP treatment were studied with working memory tasks, neuropsychological testing, and overnight polysomnographic sleep study and compared to 27 healthy controls. CPAP improved the respiratory disturbance index, minimum and mean oxygen saturation (SpO2), subjective sleep quality, and daytime sleepiness ratings compared to pre-treatment values. In terms of current neurocognitive function, treated individuals with OSA performed at a comparable level to controls on basic working memory storage functions but still showed a significant reduction on tests of working memory requiring the central executive. The OSA group also performed worse on neuropsychological measures of complex attention, executive function, and psychomotor speed. While CPAP is an effective treatment for OSA in terms of ameliorating breathing disruption and oxygen desaturation during sleep, as well as daytime sleepiness, some cognitive deficits may be more resistant to treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".