Contribution of obstructive sleep apnea to disrupted sleep in a large clinical cohort of patients with suspected obstructive sleep apnea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: The response of sleep depth to CPAP in patients with OSA is unpredictable. The odds-ratio-product (ORP) is a continuous index of sleep depth and wake propensity that distinguishes different sleep depths within sleep stages, and different levels of vigilance during stage wake. When expressed as fractions of time spent in different ORP deciles, nine distinctive patterns are found. Only three of these are associated with OSA. We sought to determine whether sleep depth improves on CPAP exclusively in patients with these three ORP patterns. METHODS: ORP was measured during the diagnostic and therapeutic components of 576 split-night polysomnographic (PSG) studies. ORP architecture in the diagnostic section was classified into one of the nine possible ORP patterns and the changes in sleep architecture were determined on CPAP for each of these patterns. ORP architecture was similarly determined in the first half of 760 full-night diagnostic PSG studies and the changes in the second half were measured to control for differences in sleep architecture between the early and late portions of sleep time in the absence of CPAP. RESULTS: Frequency of the three ORP patterns increased progressively with the apnea-hypopnea index. Sleep depth improved significantly on CPAP only in the three ORP patterns associated with OSA. Changes in CPAP in the other six patterns, or in full diagnostic PSG studies, were insignificant or paradoxical. CONCLUSIONS: ORP architecture types can identify patients in whom OSA adversely affects sleep and whose sleep is expected to improve on CPAP therapy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".