Effects of CPAP on Blood Pressure and Sympathetic Activity in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus, Chronic Kidney Disease, and Resistant Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) have increased sympathetic activity and frequently also have resistant hypertension (HTN). Treatment of OSA with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) decreases awake and sleep blood pressure (BP) and sympathetic activity. This study was designed to assess the effect of treatment of OSA with CPAP on sympathetic activity and BP in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and resistant HTN. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial. Patients with DM, CKD, and resistant HTN were randomized to treatment with a therapeutic or subtherapeutic CPAP for 6 weeks. They underwent 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring and assessment of muscle sympathetic nerve activity before and after 6 weeks on treatment. RESULTS: 0.015) compared with treatment with subtherapeutic CPAP. In contrast, treatment with therapeutic CPAP did not decrease sympathetic activity as assessed from muscle sympathetic nerve activity. CONCLUSIONS: Decrease in BP by treatment with CPAP in patients with DM, CKD, and OSA indicates the contribution of OSA to severity of HTN in this clinical scenario. Decrease in BP in the absence of changes in sympathetic activity is suggestive that other mechanisms induced by OSA play a larger role in the maintenance of HTN in these patients.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".