Nocturnal symptoms perceived as asthma are associated with obstructive sleep apnoea risk, but not bronchial hyper‐reactivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) and asthma are associated, and nocturnal breathing difficulty that is usually identified as asthma-like symptoms can be present in both conditions. We investigated how nocturnal asthma-like symptoms (NAS) and bronchial hyper-reactivity (BHR) contribute to the association between OSA risk and current asthma, which is currently unknown but a clinically important question. METHODS: We used data from 794 middle-aged participants in a population-based cohort who provided information on OSA risk (defined by a STOP-Bang questionnaire score of at least 3), current asthma and NAS, and underwent methacholine bronchial challenge testing. Using regression models, we examined the association between OSA risk and current asthma-NAS subgroups and investigated any effect modification by BHR. RESULTS: The participants were aged 50 years (49.8% male). OSA risk was associated with NAS with or without current asthma (odds ratio (OR): 2.6; 95% CI = 1.3-5.0; OR: 4.2; 95% CI = 1.1-16.1, respectively), but not with current asthma in the absence of NAS. BHR was associated with current asthma with or without NAS (OR: 2.9; 95% CI = 1.4-5.9; OR: 3.4; 95% CI = 2.0-7.0, respectively) but not with NAS in the absence of current asthma. The associations between OSA risk and current asthma were neither modified nor mediated by BHR. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that some of the nocturnal symptoms perceived as asthma may be OSA symptoms. Patients with nocturnal asthma symptoms should be considered for possible OSA.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".