The study of cognitive impairment in patients with obstructive sleep apnea and hypopnea syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To assess cognitive impairment of patients with obstructive sleep apnea and hypopnea syndrome(OSAHS) by montreal cognitive assessment(MoCA).Methods Eighty two OSAHS patients were divided into three groups according to apnea hypopnea index(AHI) and longest apnea time(LAT),including mild group,moderate and severe groups.The cognitive function was evaluated by MoCA.Results The parameters,including total scores of MoCA,attention,delayed recall in moderate and severe groups were lower than mild or control group(P0.05).The visuospatial skills and orientation in severe groups were significantly lower than those in control group(P0.05).The attention in mild groups were lower than that in control group(P0.05).The total scores of MoCA were positive correlation with Minimal saturation of blood oxygen(P0.01),and were negative correlation with AHI,LAT,and percentage of time spend when oxygen saturation lower than 90%(SLT 90%)(P0.01).Conclusion The risk of MCI increased in OSAHS patients.MoCA could be used to evaluate the cognitive impairment in OSAHS patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".