Evaluation of Cognitive Functions in Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome (OSAS) in terms of various cognitive functions and determine the relationship between cognitive functions with anxiety and depression levels.Material and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted between June 15, 2019 and December 15, 2019 and included 34 OSAS patients and 28 healthy volunteers between the ages of 18-65 with at least primary education. All participants underwent overnight recording of polysomnography. Patients were evaluated using sociodemographic data form, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Stroop Color and Word Test (SCWT).Results: There was no significant difference between the OSAS and control group in terms of age and gender. OSAS patients had significantly higher depression and anxiety scores compared to the control group. OSAS patients showed poor performance in naming, attention, abstract thinking, and delayed recalling compared to the control group. OSAS patients completed Stroop tests 1, 3, and 5 in a longer amount of time than the control group. Cognitive functions were found to have a significant negative correlation with apnea hypopnea index, BDI, and BAI scores.Conclusion: OSAS was found to have a different effect on each subcomponents of cognitive function. Furthermore, it was determined that many negative factors caused by OSAS may play a role in cognitive involvement in OSAS. Further studies are warranted to shed light on the ethiopathogenesis of this subject.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".