[A study of attention networks in patients with obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the different aspects of attention function in patients with obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) and further to investigate the factors related to the impairments. METHODS: After one night polysomnography (PSG) monitoring, a total of 50 patients with OSAHS and 40 demographic-matched healthy controls received basic cognitive assessment with a neuropsychological battery and then performed the attention networks test (ANT) was performed. RESULTS: Compared with healthy controls, patients with OSAHS performed significantly worse on cognitive tests and emotion evaluation including Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), stroop, verbal fluency, digital span, Hamilton anxiety scale (HAMA) and Beck depression inventory (BDI). With regard to ANT, significant group differences were found in executive control network [(138 ± 58) ms vs (104 ± 37) ms, P=0.003], but not in alertness [(33 ± 36) ms vs (33 ± 18)ms, P=0.975] or orientation [(48 ± 30)ms vs (51 ± 22) ms, P=0.674]. Correlation analysis indicated that the scores of the executive control network was positively correlated with the longest apnea time during the night (r=0.620, P=0.006), but was negatively correlated with the average oxygen saturation(r=-0.869, P=0.000) and the lowest oxygen saturation (r=-0.577, P=0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with OSAHS were associated with impaired attention function, especially in the executive control network efficiency. Chronic hypoxia and apnea during the sleep may be the key factors that could diminish their attention and executive function.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".