Sleep apnoea and heart failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heart failure and sleep disordered breathing (SDB) are two common conditions that frequently overlap and have been studied extensively in the past three decades. Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) may result in myocardial damage due to intermittent hypoxia that leads to increased sympathetic activity and transmural pressures, low-grade vascular inflammation, and oxidative stress. On the other hand, central sleep apnoea and Cheyne-Stokes respiration (CSA-CSR) occurs in heart failure, irrespective of ejection fraction, either reduced (HFrEF), preserved (HFpEF) or mildly reduced (HFmrEF). The pathophysiology of CSA-CSR relies on several mechanisms leading to hyperventilation, breathing cessation and periodic breathing. Pharyngeal collapse may result at least in part from fluid accumulation in the neck, owing to daytime fluid retention and overnight rostral fluid shift from the legs. Although both OSA and CSA-CSR occur in heart failure, the symptoms are less suggestive than in typical (non-heart failure-related) OSA. Overnight monitoring is mandatory for a proper diagnosis, with accurate measurement and scoring of central and obstructive events, since the management will be different depending on whether the sleep apnoea in heart failure is predominantly OSA or CSA-CSR. SDB in heart failure is associated with worse prognosis, including higher mortality, than in patients with heart failure but without SDB. However, there is currently no evidence that treating SDB improves clinically important outcomes in patients with heart failure, such as cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".