The Overlap Syndrome of Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) are common diseases that strongly impact the quality and length of life. Their coexistence is determined by overlap syndrome (OS). This systematic review aims to define the significance of these comorbidities according to the current state of knowledge. For this systematic review, we searched PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane for studies published between 2018 and 26 October 2022, to find original, observational, human studies published in English, where the diagnosis of COPD was according to the Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease guidelines and the diagnosis of OSA was based on polysomnography. The quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment tool for cohort and case-control studies, as well as its modification for cross-sectional studies. Of the 1548 records identified, 38 were eligible and included in this systematic review. The included studies covered a total population of 27,064 participants. This paper summarizes the most important, up-to-date information regarding OS, including the prevalence, meaning of age/gender/body mass index, polysomnography findings, pulmonary function, comorbidities, predicting OSA among COPD patients, and treatment of this syndrome.
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.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it