Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Incident Cancer: A Large Retrospective Multicenter Clinical Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: To examine the association between the severity of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and nocturnal hypoxemia with incident cancer. Methods: This was a multicenter retrospective clinical cohort study using linked clinical and provincial health administrative data on consecutive adults who underwent a diagnostic sleep study between 1994 and 2017 in four academic hospitals (Canada) who were free of cancer at baseline. Cancer status was derived from the Ontario Cancer Registry. Cox cause–specific regressions were utilized to address the objective and to calculate the 10-year absolute risk difference (ARD) in the marginal probability of incident cancer and the number needed to harm (NNH). Results: Of 33,997 individuals considered, 33,711 with no missing OSA severity were included: median age, 50 years; 58% male; and 23% with severe OSA (apnea-hypopnea index >30). Of the 18,458 individuals with information on sleep time spent with oxygen saturation (SaO2) <90%, 5% spent >30% of sleep with SaO2 <90% (severe nocturnal hypoxemia). Over a median of 7 years, 2,498 of 33,711 (7%) individuals developed cancer, with an incidence rate of 10.3 (10.0–10.8) per 1,000 person-years. Controlling for confounders, severe OSA was associated with a 15% increased hazard of developing cancer compared with no OSA (HR = 1.15, 1.02–1.30; ARD = 1.28%, 0.20–2.37; and NNH = 78). Severe hypoxemia was associated with about 30% increased hazard (HR = 1.32, 1.08–1.61; ARD = 2.38%, 0.47–4.31; and NNH = 42). Conclusions: In a large cohort of individuals with suspected OSA free of cancer at baseline, the severity of OSA and nocturnal hypoxemia was independently associated with incident cancer. Impact: These findings suggest the need for more targeted cancer risk awareness in individuals with 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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".