The Overlap Syndrome of Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".