Study on Cognitive Function of Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea Hypopnea Syndrome and Its Influencing Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To study the cognitive function features of patients with obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome(OSAHS) and influencing factors through modified Chinese version of Montreal Cognitive assessment(MoCA).Methods 46 OSAHS patients and 44 healthy subjects were involved into the study.The differences of abnormal ratio,total score and each item score of MoCA between the two groups were compared.The influencing factors of cognitive function including variation of sleep mode,apnea-hypopnea index(AHI),the lowest and mean oxygen saturation and education level were analyzed.Results The MoCA abnormality rate of OSAHS group(47.82%) showed statistically significant difference compared with that of the control group(8.69%)(P0.05).The MoCA total score of OSAHS group also showed statistically significant difference compared with control group(P0.05).Patients in OSAHS group showed significant damage in clock drawing test and delayed memory with increased arousal index and reduced sleep efficiency.AHI was negatively correlated with the lowest and mean oxygen saturation.Education level was positively correlated with MoCA total score.Conclusion Cognitive decline in patients with OSAHS may relate to repeated hypoxemia and sleep disorder.Education level is one of the key factors influencing the results of MoCA.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".