Effect of humidified versus nonhumidified CPAP on inflammatory response and nasopharyngeal symptoms in healthy participants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) may induce nasal inflammation because of mucosal compression or dryness.This study examined the impact of humidified versus nonhumidified CPAP on nasal inflammation and upper airway symptoms.Methods: Seventeen healthy male subjects with no previous or current history of nasal symptoms were recruited.All subjects underwent 3 hours of nonhumidified CPAP at 12.5 cmH 2 O via nasal mask.Among the 17 studied subjects, seven returned to receive a humidified CPAP at 12.5 cmH 2 O via nasal mask.The nasal wash leukocyte count was assessed at baseline and after each CPAP setting.The white blood cell (WBC) count and levels of WBCs that are mononuclear cells (including lymphocytes and monocytes) were monitored.A six-point nasal score was also assessed before and after the CPAP intervention.Results: The nasal wash WBC count (10 3 /μL) and mononuclear cell level (10 3 /μL) at baseline, on 12.5 cmH 2 O humidified CPAP, and on 12.5 cmH 2 O nonhumidified CPAP were significantly different (p = 0.016; p = 0.003).Changes in nasopharyngeal symptoms occurred in 12 of 17 subjects (70.5%) in the nonhumidified group.Participants experienced at least one nasal symptom after application of nonhumidified CPAP at 12.5 cmH 2 O. Conclusion: The present investigation suggests that humidified CPAP was not associated with early nasal inflammation and there were fewer nasopharyngeal symptoms.Further study is required to confirm the results and evaluate the impact of adding heat to the humidified CPAP system.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".