The role of CPAP treatment in elderly patients with moderate obstructive sleep apnoea: a multicentre randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment in elderly patients with nonsevere obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is controversial. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of CPAP treatment in elderly patients with moderate OSA in terms of clinical, quality-of-life and neurocognitive measures. This was an open-label, randomised, multicentre clinical trial in 145 elderly patients (≥70 years old) with confirmed moderate OSA (apnoea–hypopnoea index 15–29.9 events·h −1 ) randomised to receive CPAP (n=73) or no CPAP (n=72) for 3 months. The primary end-point was the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score, and the secondary end-points included quality of life (Quebec Sleep Questionnaire (QSQ) domain scores), sleep-related symptoms, presence of anxiety/depression, office-based blood pressure measurements and some neurocognitive tests. The analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Mean± sd age was 74.9±4.6 years. The CPAP group achieved a greater improvement in the ESS score (adjusted difference of 2.6 (95% CI 3.6–1.6) points; effect size 1) in some sleep-related symptoms and in some dimensions of the QSQ questionnaire (nocturnal symptoms: −0.7 (95% CI −0.3–−1.0) points; p<0.0001 and emotions: −0.4 (95% CI −0.1–−0.7) points; p=0.023). However, CPAP did not demonstrate any effect on either neurocognitive tests (including anxiety and depression) or blood pressure levels. There was a positive correlation between the effect of CPAP and the improvement in ESS scores and quality of life domains. CPAP treatment resulted in a significant improvement in diurnal hypersomnia and some sleep-related symptoms and quality of life domains in elderly patients with moderate 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".