The effect of positive airway pressure therapy on neurocognitive functions, depression and anxiety in obesity hypoventilation syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to evaluate the presence of neurocognitive dysfunctions, depression and anxiety and the effect of positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy on these alterations in Obesity Hypoventilation Syndrome (OHS) patients. Ten healthy normal and obese controls, 10 OHS and 10 OSAS patients were included in the study. Short form-36, Beck Depression Scale and State-Trade Anxiety Inventory (STAI 1-2) were performed. Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MOCA), Enhanced Cued Recall (ECR) and Mini Mental Test (MMT) were used for neurocognitive evaluation. All tests were repeated after one night PAP therapy in OHS and OSAS groups. OHS patients had the lowest scores of physical (PF) and social functioning (SF) in SF-36. The total number of persistent errors and incorrect answers were the highest in OHS group in WCST. The scores of MOCA, ECR and MMT were lower; depression and anxiety scores were higher in OHS group than in controls ( p = 0,00). There was a significant increase in the completed categories in OHS after PAP therapy ( p = 0,03). There were also significant increases in MOCA, ECR and MMT scores and significant decreases in depression and anxiety scores with respect to PAP therapy. Cognitive dysfunction, depression and anxiety are important under-recognized comorbidities in OHS. It is suggested that short term PAP therapy had positive effects on neurocognitive functions, depression and anxiety but further multicentre, prospective studies with large number of cases are needed to evaluate the effect of long term PAP therapy on these parameters.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".