Detection of mild cognitive impairment in middle-aged and older adults with obstructive sleep apnoea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obstructive sleep apnoea increases the risk for mild cognitive impairment and dementia. The present study aimed to characterise the ability of two cognitive screening tests, the Mini-Mental State Examination and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, to detect mild cognitive impairment in adults aged 55-85 years with and without obstructive sleep apnoea.We included 42 subjects with mild and 67 subjects with moderate-to-severe obstructive sleep apnoea. We compared them to 22 control subjects. Mild cognitive impairment was diagnosed by a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment. We used receiver operating characteristic curves to assess the ability of the two screening tests to detect mild cognitive impairment.The two screening tests showed similar discriminative ability in control subjects. However, among the mild and the moderate-to-severe obstructive sleep apnoea groups, the Mini-Mental State Examination was not able to correctly identify subjects with mild cognitive impairment. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment's discriminant ability was acceptable in both sleep apnoea groups and was comparable to what was observed in controls.The Mini-Mental State Examination should not be used to screen for cognitive impairment in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment could be used in clinical settings. However, clinicians should refer patients for neuropsychological assessment when neurodegenerative processes are suspected.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".