Prevalence of Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Glaucoma Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM AND OBJECTIVE: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a known systemic risk factor associated with glaucoma. The purpose of the study was to determine the overall prevalence of sleep apnea among patients with glaucoma. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Not applicable. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed through MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL and gray literature using Clinical Trials.gov, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses and conferences held through the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, American Academy of Ophthalmology, and Canadian Society of Ophthalmology was done until June 10, 2020. Eligible articles were identified by reviewing the retrieved results. Data extracted included the total number of patients with glaucoma and the proportion of glaucoma patients with a co-occurring diagnosis of OSA. STATA 15.0 was used to perform the meta-analysis. RESULTS: 544 articles were gathered from the databases and 40 records were collected via the gray literature search. Ten studies with 956 subjects were included for analysis. The results of the meta-analysis demonstrated a significant rate of OSA among glaucoma patients (ES = 0.17; CI: [0.08, 0.25]). CONCLUSION: We examine the prevalence of OSA in glaucoma patients and conclude that the prevalence of OSA in glaucoma patients is higher. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The findings in the ongoing investigation on the link between glaucoma and OSA continue to be unclear. The results from this study contribute to evidence of an association between the two diseases. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Prevalence of Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Glaucoma Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 2021;15(3):109-116.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".