MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206454920 · doi:10.1002/alz.051503

Age‐stratified, sex‐specific differences in cognitive performance based on risk of obstructive sleep apnea and systemic inflammation: A cross‐sectional analysis of the Canadian Longitudinal Study of Aging

2021· article· en· W4206454920 on OpenAlexaffabout
Julie Legault, Cynthia Thompson, Grégory Moullec, Marie‐Ève Martineau‐Dussault, Marc Baltzan, Nathan Cross, Thien Thanh Dang‐Vu, Nicole Gervais, Gillian Einstein, Patrick J. Hanly, Najib Ayas, Dominique Lorrain, Marta Kamińska, Jean‐François Gagnon, Andrew Lim, Julie Carrier, Nadia Gosselin

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsHealth and Social Services Centre University Institute of Geriatrics of SherbrookeUniversity of TorontoUniversité de SherbrookeUniversity of British ColumbiaInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of CalgaryMcGill University Health CentreHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalMcGill UniversityUniversité du Québec à MontréalConcordia UniversityUniversité de MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObstructive sleep apneaEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceSystemic inflammationStroop effectCognitionNeuropsychologyInternal medicinePsychiatryInflammation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Growing evidence supports associations between cognitive impairment and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Our study aimed at determining the age and sex‐specific, independent relationship between risk of having OSA and cognitive performance, and the influence of systemic inflammation on this relationship. Method Our sample included 25,712 participants from the Canadian Longitudinal Study of Aging (CLSA) comprehensive cohort aged 45 to 85 years (M = 63 years; 51% women; 78% with post‐secondary degree). Exclusion criteria included Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease and history of stroke and of traumatic brain injury. Participants were classified as high‐ or low‐risk of having OSA based on the STOP questionnaire (high‐risk = ≥ 2/4), considering signs and symptoms associated with OSA including snoring (S), tiredness (T), observation of apneas (O), and high blood pressure (P). Neuropsychological tests assessed memory, executive functioning and psychomotor speed. Levels of high‐sensitivity C‐reactive protein (hs‐CRP) were obtained through blood samples. We conducted sex‐ and age‐specific (45‐59; 60‐69; ≥70) General Linear Models between cognitive scores and risk of OSA, and moderation and mediation analyses with levels of hs‐CRP. Analyses were adjusted for socio‐demographic, lifestyle and medical comorbidities. Result In the fully adjusted model, 45‐59 years old women at high‐risk of OSA presented poorer short‐term memory and learning (Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, immediate recall, p=0.040), and executive functioning (Animal Fluency test, p=0.011; Mental Alternation test, p=0.006; Stroop Test, inhibition condition, p=0.047; low‐interference index, p=0.027 and high‐interference index, p=0.022) compared to those at low‐risk of OSA. These associations were not found in women aged ≥60 and in men of all age groups. The association between OSA risk and cognition was not moderated by education nor consistently moderated or mediated by the level of hs‐CRP. Conclusion These findings suggest that OSA might represent a modifiable risk factor of early cognitive impairment in women aged 45‐59. We suggest clinicians systematically screen for cognitive impairment when patients of this group present suspected or diagnosed OSA. Furthermore, it is important to track changes in cognitive profile of women aged 45‐59 in the CLSA cohort to identify those at risk of long‐term cognitive decline.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchFrench-language works237,207