0593 Detection Of Mild Cognitive Impairment In Older Individuals With Obstructive Sleep Apnea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obstructive sleep apnea increases the risk for mild cognitive impairment and dementia. Identifying patients who will present cognitive decline is crucial in treatment decision, particularly for patients with no or mild daytime sleepiness. We aim to characterize the ability of two cognitive screening tests, the Mini-Mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment, to detect mild cognitive impairment among older patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Mild cognitive impairment was evaluated with a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment in 67 participants with and 64 without obstructive sleep apnea (55–85 years). We used receiver operating characteristic curves to assess screening test abilities to detect mild cognitive impairment. Both screening tests showed similar discriminating abilities in participants without obstructive sleep apnea. However, among participants with obstructive sleep apnea, the Mini-Mental State Examination was not able to correctly identify those with mild cognitive impairment. The discriminant ability of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment was higher (70% sensitivity, 73% specificity, cut-off ≤26). The Mini-Mental State Examination should not be used to screen for cognitive impairment in obstructive sleep apnea patients. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment could be used in a systematic manner in clinical settings and clinicians should refer to a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment when neurodegenerative processes are suspected. This research was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and by the Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".