Positive airway pressure for sleep-disordered breathing in acute quadriplegia: a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Highly prevalent and severe sleep-disordered breathing caused by acute cervical spinal cord injury (quadriplegia) is associated with neurocognitive dysfunction and sleepiness and is likely to impair rehabilitation. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether 3 months of autotitrating CPAP would improve neurocognitive function, sleepiness, quality of life, anxiety and depression more than usual care in acute quadriplegia. METHODS AND MEASUREMENTS: identified as the most important secondary outcome. MAIN RESULTS: 1810 incident cases were screened. 332 underwent full, portable polysomnography, 273 of whom had an apnoea hypopnoea index greater than 10. 160 tolerated at least 4 hours of CPAP during a 3-day run-in and were randomised. 149 participants (134 men, age 46±34 years, 81±57 days postinjury) completed the trial. CPAP use averaged 2.9±2.3 hours per night with 21% fully 'adherent' (at least 4 hours use on 5 days per week). Intention-to-treat analyses revealed no significant differences between groups in the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Task (mean improvement of 2.28, 95% CI -7.09 to 11.6; p=0.63). Controlling for premorbid intelligence, age and obstructive sleep apnoea severity (group effect -1.15, 95% CI -10 to 7.7) did not alter this finding. Sleepiness was significantly improved by CPAP on intention-to-treat analysis (mean difference -1.26, 95% CI -2.2 to -0.32; p=0.01). CONCLUSION: CPAP did not improve Paced Auditory Serial Addition Task scores but significantly reduced sleepiness after acute quadriplegia. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12605000799651.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".