Demographics, Sleep Apnea and Positive Airway Pressure (PAP) Treatment-Related Characteristics Associated with PAP Adherence: A Large Retrospective Community-Based Longitudinal Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite many years of research, multiple factors have inconsistently shown to be associated with positive airway pressure (PAP) adherence. We conducted a retrospective observational study to evaluate the association between selected demographics, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) - and PAP treatment-related factors, generally available, and objective PAP therapy adherence.We considered all consented individuals with OSA who purchased a PAP device from a registered vendor (Ottawa, Ontario) between 2011 and 2017 who had usage data available. PAP adherence was measured objectively as PAP use for at least 4 hours on at least 70% of days on treatment. In our cohort, 7,147/11,634 (61.5%) of participants were deemed adherent to PAP. The median percentage of days PAP therapy was used was 82% (IQR: 48-97%), and the median number of days PAP therapy was used for greater than 4 hours was 95 (IQR: 28-372). In multivariable logistic regression considering all variables available, the effect of body mass index, age, and minimum SaO2 at baseline sleep study were significantly associated with PAP adherence.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".