Effects of continuous positive airway pressure on elderly patients with obstructive sleep apnea: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: the aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea in the elderly. METHOD: a comprehensive search for qualified clinical trials was performed on April, 2016. Basic demographic information of enrolled subjects, study design, survival rate, cardiovascular events, quality of life scores, and neurocognitive data were extracted for analysis. RESULTS: A total of seven clinical trials were included in this meta-analysis, in which untreated elderly patients exhibited worse survival rate than those with CPAP (OR=2.22, 95% CI=1.64 to 3.01, P< 0.00001). Treated elderly patients exhibited less cardiovascular risk than those without CPAP (RR=0.49, 95% CI=0.36 to 0.66, P<0.00001) and a statistically significant improvement on all the domains of Quebec Sleepiness Questionnaire, supported by pooled weighted mean difference. Furthermore, CPAP treatment partially improved the cognitive functions. CONCLUSION: CPAP treatment achieves improvements in decreasing mortality and controlling cardiovascular events and exhibits few effects on neurocognitive function. Further large-scale, well-designed interventional investigation is needed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".