Obstructive sleep apnoea and 5-year cognitive decline in the elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The relationship between obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) and cognitive decline remains controversial, especially in the elderly population. We used data from the HypnoLaus study to assess associations between OSA and longitudinal cognitive changes in a sample of community-dwelling elderly individuals. Methods We studied associations between polysomnographic OSA parameters (of breathing/hypoxaemia and sleep fragmentation) and cognitive changes over a 5-year period, after adjustment for potential confounders. The primary outcome was the annual change in cognitive scores. The moderating effects of age, sex and apolipoprotein E4 (ApoE4) status were also examined. Results 358 elderly individuals without dementia were included (mean±sdage 71.0±4.2 years; 42.5% males). A lower mean peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) during sleep was associated with a steeper decline in Mini-Mental State Examination (B= −0.12, p=0.004), Stroop test condition 1 (B=0.53, p=0.002) and Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test delayed free recall (B= −0.05, p=0.008). A longer time spent asleep withSpO2<90% was associated with a steeper decline in Stroop test condition 1 (B=0.47, p=0.006). Moderation analysis showed that apnoea–hypopnoea index and oxygen desaturation index were associated with a steeper decline in global cognitive function, processing speed and executive function only in older participants, men and ApoE4 carriers. Conclusions Our results provide evidence of the contribution of OSA and nocturnal hypoxaemia to cognitive decline in the elderly population.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".