431 Outcome of Positive Airway Pressure Therapy Combined with Telemonitoring in Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction The rate of positive airway pressure (PAP) adherences in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) patients with PAP therapy has remains persistently low. Telemonitoring is a promising wireless technology to early detect of usage trouble and solve them simultaneously. We compare PAP compliance, Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ-10), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), heart rate and blood pressure in OSA patients with PAP therapy for 12 weeks between telemonitoring and protocol-based groups. Methods This is a prospective simple randomization (1:1) study, allocated into the telemonitoring and protocol-based groups, at Central Chest Institute of Thailand since June to November 2020. We recruited adult patients, who underwent split-night polysomnography (PSG), met diagnostic criteria of OSA by ICSD-3 and achieved optimal or good pressure. Demographics data, physiological sleep parameters and differences between groups were analyzed by using descriptive, paired t-test, and ANOVA. Results A total of ten OSA patients with PAP therapy were attended. Baseline characteristics between groups were compared, and it is apparent that among telemonitoring and protocol-based groups, most patients were male (60% in each group), the average age of patients were (45.60 ± 9.86 vs 41.60 ± 12.38, p = 0.588) years, body mass index (BMI) (24.66 ± 3.39 vs 30.21 ± 6.13, p = 0.114) km/m2, Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) was (10.00 ± 2.92 vs 9.40 ± 3.57, p = 0.779), apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) of (60.06 ± 31.08 vs 77.98 ± 43.17, p = 0.473) events/hour, and PAP pressure usage (10.20 ± 3.71 vs 10.00 ± 3.67, p = 0.933) cmH2O. There was no significant difference between groups in clinical parameters, sleep questionnaires and PAP compliance of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) patients with PAP therapy for 12 weeks. However, in telemonitoring group, PSQI compared among baseline, fourth and twelfth week were significantly improved (7.60 ± 2.71 vs 5.00 ± 2.00 vs 4.00 ± 1.00 respectively, p = 0.041). Conclusion Using telemonitoring-guided intervention causes significantly improved in Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index in severe obstructive sleep apnea patients with PAP therapy for 12 weeks. There was no significant difference in PAP compliance between telemonitoring and protocol-based groups. Support (if any):
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".