Effects of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure on Quality of Life in Patients With Moderate to Severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea: Data From a Randomized Controlled Trial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Previous studies have shown that CPAP has a substantial impact on daytime symptoms and quality of life (QOL). It remains unclear which outcome measures best identify real CPAP effects and carry independent information. METHODS: One hundred-two men with moderate-severe obstructive sleep apnea were randomized to either "real" or "sham" CPAP for one month. Outcome measures were subjective sleepiness (Epworth Sleepiness Scale [ESS]) and QOL measures includiig SF-36/SF-12 and Calgary Sleep Apnea Quality of Life Index (SAQLI). The bed partner's QOL and rating of patient's response to CPAP were assessed with the Dublin questionnaire. All data were standardized using effect sizes and expressed as real minus sham to remove the nonspecific effects of placebo. RESULTS: Real CPAP was superior to sham CPAP in almost all outcome measures. ESS, patient's component from Dublin, and social interactions from SAQLI showed the largest differences in effect sizes between real and sham (1.33, 0.98, and 0.92 respectively). ESS carried the highest predictive power of real CPAP response (P < 0.0001, r2 = 0.21). Question number 5 from Dublin (partner assessed patient's sleep quality) and question 6 from ESS (dozing while talking) were the best single item predictors of real CPAP response. CONCLUSIONS: Real CPAP reduces subjective sleepiness and improves QOL of both patients and bed partners. ESS is the best score; question number 5 from Dublin and question number 6 from ESS are the best single item predictors of real CPAP response. This information should allow the selection of appropriate questions in clinical practice and research protocols.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it