Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Improves Quality of Life in Women with Obstructive Sleep Apnea. A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the treatment of choice in patients with symptomatic obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). CPAP treatment improves quality of life (QoL) in men with OSA, but its role in women has not yet been assessed. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of CPAP on QoL in women with moderate to severe OSA. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial in 307 consecutive women diagnosed with moderate to severe OSA (apnea-hypopnea index, ≥15) in 19 Spanish sleep units. Women were randomized to receive effective CPAP therapy (n = 151) or conservative treatment (n = 156) for 3 months. The primary endpoint was the change in QoL based on the Quebec Sleep Questionnaire. Secondary endpoints included changes in daytime sleepiness, mood state, anxiety, and depression. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis with adjustment for baseline values and other relevant clinical variables. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The women in the study had a mean (SD) age of 57.1 (10.1) years and a mean (SD) Epworth Sleepiness Scale score of 9.8 (4.4), and 77.5% were postmenopausal. Compared with the control group, the CPAP group achieved a significantly greater improvement in all QoL domains of the Quebec Sleep Questionnaire (adjusted treatment effect between 0.53 and 1.33; P < 0.001 for all domains), daytime sleepiness (-2.92; P < 0.001), mood state (-4.24; P = 0.012), anxiety (-0.89; P = 0.014), depression (-0.85; P = 0.016), and the physical component summary of the 12-item Short Form Health Survey (2.78; P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: In women with moderate or severe OSA, 3 months of CPAP therapy improved QoL, mood state, anxiety and depressive symptoms, and daytime sleepiness compared with conservative treatment. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02047071).
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".