Fitness indicators and cognitive performance in patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. A preliminary report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: The aim of the study was to investigate the relationship between fitness indicators and cognitive performance with the parameters of the sleep study (PSG) in patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). Materials and methods: 47 OSAS patients (Age: 46.7±10.3 yrs, BMI: 32.9±7.2 kg/m2, AHI: 46.7±26 /h, Male: 74%) comorbidity-free included in our study. The somatometric characteristics were collected, a subjective evaluation of exercise intensity according to the Borg scales, as well as a cognitive assessment (MoCA test), were recorded, while patients underwent 6-minute walk test (6MWT). Exclusion criteria: age <20 and >60 yrs, BMI ≥40 kg/m2, WHR >1, neck circumference ≥40 cm and physical activity <100 min/week. Results: From PSG measurements, AHI was negatively correlated with 6MWT (p<0.01) and the cognitive domain of Orientation (p<0.05), and minimum SpO2 with the domains of Attention/Working Memory and Orientation (p<0.05). Perceived leg fatigue (fL) according to Borg scale was negatively associated with Attention/Working Memory (p<0.05), whereas HRrest positively with fL (p<0.05). Differences were recorded in Borg scale for fL (cut-off point 2 score) compared to the parameters of MoCA score (p<0.01) and of Borg scale for perceived dyspnea (p<0.01). 6MWT demonstrated differences with fL with cut-off point 400 m (p<0.05). Conclusion: The overestimation of the perceived sense of the intensity of the exercise, in combination with the reduced physical condition, is associated with cognitive decline, particularly with distinctive domains, in the framework of apneic episodes in OSAS patients.
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) | 0.002 | 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".