Sleep‐disordered breathing was associated with lower health‐related quality of life and cognitive function in a cross‐sectional study of older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The clinical significance of sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) in older age is uncertain. This study determined the prevalence and associations of SDB with mood, daytime sleepiness, quality of life (QOL) and cognition in a relatively healthy older Australian cohort. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted from the Study of Neurocognitive Outcomes, Radiological and retinal Effects of Aspirin in Sleep Apnoea. Participants completed an unattended limited channel sleep study to measure the oxygen desaturation index (ODI) to define mild (ODI 5-15) and moderate/severe (ODI ≥ 15) SDB, the Centre for Epidemiological Studies Scale, the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, the 12-item Short-Form for QOL and neuropsychological tests. RESULTS: Of the 1399 participants (mean age 74.0 years), 36% (273 of 753) of men and 25% (164 of 646) of women had moderate/severe SDB. SDB was associated with lower physical health-related QOL (mild SDB: beta coefficient [β] -2.5, 95% CI -3.6 to -1.3, p < 0.001; moderate/severe SDB: β -1.8, 95% CI -3.0 to -0.6, p = 0.005) and with lower global composite cognition (mild SDB: β -0.1, 95% CI -0.2 to 0.0, p = 0.022; moderate/severe SDB: β -0.1, 95% CI -0.2 to 0.0, p = 0.032) compared to no SDB. SDB was not associated with daytime sleepiness nor depression. CONCLUSION: SDB was associated with lower physical health-related quality of life and cognitive function. Given the high prevalence of SDB in older age, assessing QOL and cognition may better delineate subgroups requiring further management, and provide useful treatment target measures for this age group.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".