Impact of continuous positive airway pressure (<scp>CPAP</scp>) on quality of life in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (<scp>OSA</scp>)
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
Obstructive sleep apnea is a chronic illness with increasing prevalence. In addition to associated cardiovascular comorbidities, obstructive sleep apnea syndrome has been linked to poor quality of life, occupational accidents, and motor vehicle crashes secondary to excessive daytime sleepiness. Although continuous positive airway pressure is the gold standard for sleep apnea treatment, its effects on quality of life are not well defined. In the current study we investigated the effects of treatment on quality of life using the data from the Apnea Positive Pressure Long-term Efficacy Study (APPLES), a randomized controlled trial of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) versus sham CPAP. The Calgary Sleep Apnea Quality of Life Index (SAQLI) was used to assess quality of life. Overall we found no significant improvement in quality of life among sleep apnea patients after CPAP treatment. However, after stratifying by OSA severity, it was found that long-term improvement in quality of life might occur with the use of CPAP in people with severe and possibly moderate sleep apnea, and no demonstrable improvement in quality of life was noted among participants with mild obstructive sleep apnea.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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