Effectiveness of nasal continuous airway pressure therapy in patients with obstructive sleep apnea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: A prospective observational study was carried out with the aim of evaluating the effectiveness of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) therapy on the health-related quality of life (QoL) of patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). METHODS: The patients included in this study were those recently diagnosed with OSA (AHI > 5) and given nCPAP therapy, as well as being referred to a sleep laboratory for an assessment of their sleep disordered breathing. Prior to the start of nCPAP therapy and polysomnography evaluation, patients were asked to complete the validated Quebec sleep questionnaire (QSQ), and their baseline measurements were recorded. RESULTS: Among the study population, 14.41% (n = 31) had mild OSA with an apnea and hypopnea index of 5 to 14.9 events/h, while 26.97% (n = 58) had moderate OSA and 40% (n = 86) had severe OSA. The overall average apnea and hypopnea index of the study population was 30.24 ± 9.73 events/h; mild OSA patients had an average apnea and hypopnea index of 10.09 ± 2.65 events/h, moderate OSA patients had 21.48 ± 4.40 events/h, and severe OSA patients had 59.16 ± 22.14 events/h. A significant difference was observed between the scores before treatment and after 6 months of therapy in all domains of the QSQ QoL scores (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Nasal continuous positive airway pressure treatment improved the QoL for patients with mild, moderate, and severe sleep apnea.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".