Neuropsychological and executive screening in obstructive sleep apnea: early effect of ventilatory therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is often associated with clinical, psychological and neuropsychological comorbidities such as Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). This study evaluated changes in clinical, psychosocial, Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and neuropsychological profile in OSA subjects after ventilatory therapy, making comparison with normative data. The aim of the study was to verify the suitability of the HRQoL and neuropsychological screening tests in detecting variations in OSA subjects. METHODS: At baseline, 32 OSA subjects underwent the following assessment: EuroQol (EQ-5D-3L) and EQ VAS, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB). After the ventilatory titration, 31 OSA subjects repeated the EQ VAS, MoCA and FAB assessment. RESULTS: ]) showed low emotive distress, a lower perception of HRQoL than normative data and 35.48% of them exhibited executive deficits, too. MCI was detected in 3.2% and 48.4% of subjects after normative Italian and international correction, respectively. Subsequently the ventilatory therapy and the rehabilitative interdisciplinary treatment, subjects improved in EQ VAS (68.23±18.73 vs. 87.13±10.80, P=0.0001), FAB scores (15,30±2.03 vs. 16,65±1,40, P=0.007) and MoCA memory subtest scores (2.16±1.34 vs. 3.06±1.63, P=0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Ventilatory therapy provided during a rehabilitative and interdisciplinary program increased subjects' HRQoL, executive functions and verbal memory.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".