0817 ADHERENCE TO CPAP TREATMENT IN WOMEN WITH OBSTRUCTIVE SLEEP APNEA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family physicians are under-referring patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) to sleep medicine specialists for diagnosis and treatment, a phenomenon particularly acute in women. Because recruited women have been found to have a surprisingly high OSA diagnosis rate of substantial severity, the present study examines predictors of continuous positive airway treatment (CPAP) adherence in an exclusively female sample - a group rarely selected for evaluation. The objectives were to describe the factors associated with CPAP non-adherence and to examine predictors of treatment adherence. Participants were 29 women (mean age = 56.5, sd = 9.8), recruited from two hospital based family medicine clinics. OSA was diagnosed by polysomnography; insomnia-related variables, quality of life and psychological adjustment were assessed by self-report measures. There were no significant differences between adherent and non-adherent women with respect to severity of OSA. The adherent group had worse nocturnal and daytime functioning than the non-adherent group; this difference reached statistical significance for feeling unrefreshed in the morning, perceived poor sleep quality, feeling sleepy during the day and having difficulty concentrating.. The two most important adherence predictors were: feeling refreshed in the morning and number of nocturnal awakenings. Our findings suggest that women with moderate to severe OSA may be identified first by complaints related to feeling unrefreshed in the morning, followed by perceived poor sleep quality, sleepiness during the day and difficulty concentrating. These, also, are the women are most likely to accept and adhere to CPAP treatment. Since adherence predictors were basically sleep quality variables, one might speculate that identified CPAP adherent women in family practice settings may be at risk for having their sleep apnea misdiagnosed as insomnia and subsequently be offered inappropriate treatment (e.g. sedatives or hypnotics). Notably, the non adherent women had equally severe OSA, and these are the women, at elevated risk of having their OSA overlooked by their physician. CIHR.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".