Impact of continuous positive airway pressure mode on adherence to treatment in obstructive sleep apnea patients awaiting bariatric surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obstructive sleep apnea is prevalent in the bariatric population, and is associated with various complications. Despite increasing popularity, automatic positive airway pressure has not yet been studied in this population. The objective was to compare treatment adherence between automatic positive airway pressure and fixed positive airway pressure (continuous positive airway pressure) in obstructive sleep apnea patients awaiting bariatric surgery. This randomized controlled trial involved obese patients newly diagnosed with severe obstructive sleep apnea and awaiting bariatric surgery. The primary outcome was the difference in adherence between automatic positive airway pressure and continuous positive airway pressure pre-operatively. Secondary outcomes included positive airway pressure efficacy, adherence at 1 month, adverse effects, quality of life and peri-operative complications. Analyses were conducted using a modified intention-to-treat methodology. Fifty patients were randomized. Baseline characteristics and duration of positive airway pressure therapy were comparable between groups. At the time of surgery, the percentage of overall nights positive airway pressure used was 96.9% [95% confidence interval: 93.5-100] and 86.0% [95% confidence interval: 66.9-100] in the automatic positive airway pressure and continuous positive airway pressure groups, respectively (p = .047). Average use was 6.3 hr per night [95% confidence interval: 5.1-7.2] and 5.9 hr per night [95% confidence interval: 3.0-8.8], with a difference of 0.4 hr favouring automatic positive airway pressure (p = .75). Nightly use ≥ 4 hr per night was 86.4% and 74.0% in the automatic positive airway pressure and fixed continuous positive airway pressure groups, respectively (p = .22). There were no statistically significant differences regarding adherence at 1 month, efficacy parameters, adverse effects, quality of life and peri-operative complications. With no difference on the safety profile and efficiency parameters, treatment adherence is not improved with automatic positive airway pressure compared with fixed continuous positive airway pressure in obstructive sleep apnea patients awaiting bariatric surgery.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".