Effects of continuous positive airway pressure on neurocognitive and neuropsychiatric function in obstructive sleep apnea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the neurocognitive and neuropsychiatric effects of continuous positive airway pressure treatment on patients with obstructive sleep apnea. This cross-sectional, prospective, observational study included 126 patients with sleep apnea. The following tests were performed: the Montreal Cognitive Assessment for the evaluation of cognitive impairment, the Beck Depression Inventory, and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, together with the Epworth Sleepiness Scale for the evaluation of neuropsychiatric symptoms and a person's general level of daytime sleepiness. The first measurement did not show neurocognitive impairment or a higher level of depressive and anxiety symptoms in 126 patients with obstructive sleep apnea in comparison to normative standards. After the 3-month treatment indicated for 43 patients with obstructive sleep apnea, we did not find any significant improvement in cognitive performance (p = .213). However, patients with sleep apnea with continuous positive airway pressure treatment did show significantly less daytime sleepiness, anxiety and depressive symptoms (all p < .001). In conclusion, short-term (3 months) treatment of patients with obstructive sleep apnea can substantially alleviate their daytime sleepiness, as well as depressive and anxiety symptoms.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".