Impact of moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea on the cognition in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a relentlessly progressive lung disease with a fatal prognosis to whose rapid evolution multiple comorbidities may contribute, one of the most common being obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). There are several potential factors and conditions for the emergence of a cognitive deficit in relation to IPF or associated morbidities. OBJECTIVES: The goals of this study were to assess cognition in patients with IPF in stable phase and to identify clinical cognition modifiers. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, 23 patients with IPF were evaluated using Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), an instrument for detecting mild cognitive impairments and were screened for OSA through overnight cardiorespiratory polygraphy and for anxiety and depression with three specific scale (Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale: GAD-7; the Patient Health Questionnaire: PHQ-9; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: HADS). RESULTS: MoCA score was lower in patients with IPF when compared to controls subjects (24 [21,26] vs. 27 [26,28], p = 0.003) but not as significantly as in COPD patients (21 [18.8,23.3], p<0.0001). OSA was diagnosed in 19 (82.6%) IPF patients, 12 patients showed the presence of moderate-severe forms (63.15%). IPF patients with cognitive impairment (MoCA<23) exhibit a higher severity of OSA (apneea hypopnea index-AHI: 33.0±19.1 vs. 12.44±8.2, p = 0.018), and a higher Epworth score (7.1±3.3 vs. 4.3±1.8, p = 0.013). Anxiety and depression scores were not correlated with MoCA results. CONCLUSIONS: Impaired cognition in patients with IPF is mild and affect the areas of visuospatial abilities, language and working memory. OSA could be a possible predictor of IPF cognition deficit. Given the high prevalence of multiple types of sleep disorders in IPF patients, these should be investigated at least by cardiorespiratory polygraphy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".