Intensive Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Adherence Program During Stroke Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose- Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea may improve stroke recovery, but adherence is poor. We assessed the effectiveness of an intensive CPAP adherence program during and after inpatient stroke rehabilitation on 3-month adherence and stroke recovery. Methods- In a single-arm study, 90 stroke rehabilitation patients were enrolled into an intensive CPAP adherence program. CPAP was continued after a run-in among qualifying patients with evidence of obstructive sleep apnea. The primary outcome was CPAP adherence, defined as ≥4 hours of use on ≥70% of days, over 3 months. Results- A total of 62 patients qualified for continued CPAP and 52 of these were willing to continue CPAP after discharge from rehabilitation. At 3 months, the average daily CPAP use was 4.7 hours (SD 2.6), and 32/52 (62%) patients were adherent. Factors significantly associated with adherence included more severe stroke, aphasia, and white race. Compared with nonadherent patients, adherent patients experienced greater improvements in the cognitive component of the Functional Independence Measure ( P=0.02) and in the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale ( P=0.03). Conclusions- This intensive CPAP adherence program initiated during stroke rehabilitation can lead to CPAP adherence in the majority of patients with evidence of obstructive sleep apnea, including those with more severe stroke and aphasia, and may promote recovery. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02809430.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".