Alterations of Limbic Structure Volumes in Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Objectives: We investigated the change in limbic structure volumes and intrinsic limbic network in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) compared to healthy controls. Methods: We enrolled 26 patients with OSA and 30 healthy controls. They underwent three-dimensional T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on a 3 T MRI scanner. The limbic structures were analyzed volumetrically using the FreeSurfer program. We examined the intrinsic limbic network using the Brain Analysis with Graph Theory program and compared the groups' limbic structure volumes and intrinsic limbic network. Results: There were significant differences in specific limbic structure volumes between the groups. The volumes in the right amygdala, right hippocampus, right hypothalamus, right nucleus accumbens, left amygdala, left basal forebrain, left hippocampus, left hypothalamus, and left nucleus accumbens in patients with OSA were lower than those in healthy controls (right amygdala, 0.102 vs. 0.113%, p = 0.004; right hippocampus, 0.253 vs. 0.281%, p = 0.002; right hypothalamus, 0.028 vs. 0.032%, p = 0.002; right nucleus accumbens, 0.021 vs. 0.024%, p = 0.019; left amygdala, 0.089 vs. 0.098%, p = 0.007; left basal forebrain, 0.020 vs. 0.022%, p = 0.027; left hippocampus, 0.245 vs. 0.265%, p = 0.021; left hypothalamus, 0.028 vs. 0.031%, p = 0.016; left nucleus accumbens, 0.023 vs. 0.027%, p = 0.002). However, there were no significant differences in network measures between the groups. Conclusion: We demonstrate that the volumes of several limbic structures in patients with OSA are significantly lower than those in healthy controls. However, there are no alterations to the intrinsic limbic network. These findings suggest that OSA is one of the risk factors for cognitive impairments.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".