Sleep apnoea and pulmonary hypertension in high-altitude dwellers: more than an association?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increased pulmonary arterial pressure (PAP) is a hallmark of high-altitude exposure and, if exaggerated, may be associated with morbidity and mortality. High altitude also alters nocturnal breathing and altered nocturnal respiration has recently been reported to be associated with altered pulmonary and systemic vascular function in Andean high-altitude dwellers [1], suggesting the possibility of a causal link. Consistent with this hypothesis, in this issue of the European Respiratory Journal , Latshang et al. [2] report an association between pulmonary hypertension and sleep apnoea in Kyrgyz highlanders which remains significant even when adjusting for several potentially confounding factors. The authors are to be commended for their interesting study, performed in a remote area in a so far little investigated high-altitude population; however, this study also leaves open some intriguing questions. Pulmonary hypertension and sleep apnoea in high-altitude dwellers: more than an association?
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".