0568 Objective Improvement in Sleep Depth and Quality Following Initiation of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure for Obstructive Sleep Apnea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Treatment of OSA has long been known to improve daytime sleepiness and other indices of daytime functioning (ESS, FOSQ 10/30, SAQLI). Demonstrating objective improvement of sleep depth and quality has remained elusive. The Odds Ratio Product (ORP) has recently been described as a method of objectively measuring sleep depth and quality using the relationships of the powers of different EEG frequencies in a single understandable index. The scale ranges from 0 - 2.5 with values of zero only occurring during sleep and a value of 2.5 only occurring during wakefulness. A value of 1.25 predicts an equal probability of being awake or asleep. The current investigation seeks to establish how much the ORP changes with the introduction of CPAP therapy. Forty-one adults (23 males/18 females) with OSA or UARS completed the study with a mean AHI of 33.2 ± 28.2, age 48.4 ± 11.0, BMI 35.1 ± 6.2, FOSQ 10 14.8 ± 3.2 and ESS 10.4 ± 5.0. Home sleep studies were done including EEG (Prodigy). A follow-up EEG study was done on CPAP three weeks later. ORP was calculated for all sleep stages (sleep depth) and for all stages after sleep onset (ASO-sleep quality). Mean ORP (sleep) prior to CPAP was 0.71 ± 0.24 vs 0.60±.24 during therapy (p=0.047). Mean ORP (ASO) prior to CPAP was 0.85 ± 0.29 vs 0.71 ± 0.28 during therapy (p=0.028). In 28, ORP decreased on therapy and in 13 increased. Recent data has demonstrated that ORP on consecutive nights isn’t systematically different. Arousal/awakening index (AI) prior to therapy was 27.3 ± 14.7 vs 17.5 ± 5 during therapy (p=0.0002). ORP9 (an index of arousability) decreased from 0.95 ± 0.26 to 0.87 ± 0.29 (p>0.05). Multiple linear regression analysis revealed a model with major factors being ∆ORP9 and ∆AI (R2=0.779). There was no correlation between ∆FOSQ10 or ∆ESS and ∆ORP. The ORP decreases with CPAP therapy in most patients and provides a simple objective measure of improvement of sleep depth and quality. Financial and in-kind support was provided Cerebra Health Inc and RANA Respiratory Care Group.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".