Effects of continuous positive airway pressure treatment on mood, cognition, and quality of life in patients with obstructive sleep apnea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA)-hypopnea syndrome is characterized by breathing cessation with temporary decrease in cerebral oxygenation that may lead to poor concentration up to cognitive impairment and mood problems. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is essential for treating OSA-hypopnea syndrome, but its role remains debatable. This current work was designed to evaluate the effect of CPAP therapy on neuropsychiatric complications of OSA including mood disorders (depression and anxiety), neurocognitive disorders, and sleep-related quality of life (QoL). Patients and methods A total of 113 newly diagnosed patients with OSA were followed up after receiving CPAP treatment for 3 months, by assessment of Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Functional Outcome of Sleep Questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and neurocognitive assessment by Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scale. Results After 3 months on CPAP, patients with OSA achieved improvement in sleep symptoms, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Functional Outcome of Sleep Questionnaire-10 (P<0.001), HADS (P=0.01, 0.05), and MoCA scale (P=0.02). Among the different domains of cognitive dysfunction, only visual-spatial/executive function, namely, attention and delayed recall domains, were significantly improved. There were significant positive correlations between HADS anxiety and depression scores with apnea/hypopnea index, and also the minimal oxygen saturation showed significant negative correlation with HADS, but positive correlation with MoCA scale. Conclusion A remarkable improvement was evident in sleep-related QoL, depression, anxiety, and some domains of cognitive function, after using CPAP treatment among complaint patients with OSA. Depression, anxiety, and cognitive dysfunction are the prevalent neuropsychiatric complications of OSA and have to be assessed in all patients with OSA. Minimal oxygen saturation was the most striking risk factor correlated with sleep-related QoL and all the studied parameters of neuropsychiatric disorders.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".