Evaluating the Effects of Agomelatine on Polysomnography Parameters in Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a common serious sleep disorder. Melatonin-based drugs such as agomelatine may have beneficial effects on patients with sleep disorders. This study aimed to evaluate agomelatine effects on polysomnography parameters in patients with OSA. METHODS: In this randomized, parallel, and single-blind study, seventy patients 18 years of age or older with obstructive sleep apnea who were referred to the sleep clinic were evaluated. The patients were randomly assigned into agomelatine and control groups. Patients in the agomelatine group received 50 mg agomelatine, one hour before sleep, for three consecutive nights prior to the polysomnography test, while the patients in the control group did not receive agomelatine. Sleep test parameters were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Three parameters in the agomelatine versus control group showed significant differences. They were the median and interquartile range of the total sleep time, 397 [326.5-437.4] vs. 287.5 [184-393.1; p, 0.004] minuets, sleep efficiency percentage, 75.6 [71-87.4] vs. 65.1 [50.8-80.1; p, 0.005] and the wakening percentage, 7.5 [12.01-27.6] vs. 8.8[18.3-49; p, 0.004] agomelatine vs. control group. Other polysomnography parameters revealed no significant differences between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Agomelatine administration in patients with OSA may improve total sleep time, sleep efficiency percentage and the percentage of patients' awakening.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".