Obstructive sleep apnoea is not a risk factor for incident hospitalised depression: a historical cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated whether obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) was related to the incidence of hospitalisation for depression, a robust end-point that is unlikely to result from misdiagnosis. All adults referred with suspected OSA who underwent a diagnostic sleep study at a large urban academic hospital between 1994 and 2010 and were linked to provincial health administrative data between 1991 and 2015 were included. Cox regression analysis was used to investigate the association between OSA symptoms and severity and incident hospitalised depression, the primary outcome. Over a median follow-up of 9.7 years, 136 (1.3%) out of 10 149 participants were hospitalised for depression. A significant crude effect of OSA symptoms (waking unrefreshed and impact on memory and concentration) on hospitalised depression became nonsignificant after controlling for confounders. Apnoea–hypopnoea index was not significantly associated with the outcome: adjusted hazard ratio (33 versus 6 events·h −1 ) 1.13 (95% CI 0.91–1.40). Factors associated with hospitalised depression were female sex, younger age, use of hypnotics, alcoholism and unemployment. In a large clinical cohort with suspected OSA, controlling for confounders, OSA symptoms and severity were not related to the risk of hospitalisation for depression, suggesting that previously reported links between OSA and depression may be due to overlapping diagnostic criteria. However, our findings cannot exclude a potential link between OSA and milder depression.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".