Should testing for obstructive sleep apnea be offered routinely to older family medicine patients? A prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In our previous studies, we offered older family medicine patients testing for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and discovered that 80% of patients who accepted, were later diagnosed with unsuspected OSA. In the present study, we followed such patients for 3 years of usual treatment. The goals were to (1) observe whether wider testing for OSA would increase case recognition and treatment uptake; (2) identify symptom and health characteristics associated with diagnosis and treatment efficacy. 101 women and 75 men (>45 years) recruited from family medicine clinics completed questionnaires, polysomnography and consented to chart review (Time 1). Participants with OSA were offered treatment and follow-up with a sleep medicine specialist. All were re-evaluated after 3 years (Time 2). At Time 1, 93% of participants received a diagnosis of OSA. Of these, 53 initiated treatment (46 PAP therapy); at Time 2, 24 PAP users met criteria for adherence. PAP-adherent participants had worse OSA and worse reported symptoms at Time 1 than non-adherent participants. At Time 2, PAP-adherent participants improved on insomnia and daytime symptoms compared to non-adherent participants who showed no change. Adherent and non-adherent participants showed no difference in health indices at Time 1 and no change at three-year follow-up. Benefits of treatment included improvements in co-morbid insomnia and daytime functioning; however, offering wider testing for OSA to older, family medicine patients yielded a high rate of diagnosis but low treatment adoption and adherence. Therefore, a cost-effective strategy would identify and support those likely to adopt and adhere to treatment.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".