Sleep-disordered breathing and daytime postural stability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Postural stability depends on the coordination of the central nervous system with visual sense, proprioceptive and vestibular information. Sleep deprivation has been shown to affect this function. The objective of our study was to assess the effects of sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) on postural stability. METHODS: 158 subjects referred for suspected SDB had an overnight sleep study and were placed on a posturographic platform in late afternoon. This platform allows measuring the centre of pressure (CoP) oscillations and to calculate: total displacement of CoP in X and Y axes, mean speed of CoP displacement and the length as function of surface (LFS) ratio (length of CoP displacement/surface of CoP trajectory). RESULTS: 98 men and 60 women were included. Mean age±SD was 45.4±5.5 years old, body mass index (BMI) 27.5±5.6 kg/m(2) and apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI) 13.6±16.1/h. AHI was <5/h in 64 (41%) subjects, 5-15/h in 43 (27%), 15-30/h in 30 (19%) and >30/h in 21 (13%). In patients with an AHI >5/h versus AHI <5/h, we observed an important increase in LFS (+21%, p<0.001), in XY length (+23%, p<0.001) and in mean speed (+23%, p<0.001). After controlling for age, BMI and sleepiness (Epworth) in multivariate regression models, there was a positive association between all nocturnal breathing parameters (specifically: mean SpO2, AHI, oxygen desaturation index 3% and % time with SpO2 <90%) and the main stability outcomes (all p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: SDB severity, especially the mean nocturnal SpO2 level, is associated with impaired daytime postural stability.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".