Correlation between Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome (OSAS) and Cognitive Dysfunction in Elderly Patients with Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) is a common clinical disease that seriously affects the quality of life and health of patients. This study aimed to explore the correlation between OSAS and cognitive dysfunction in elderly patients with hypertension. Methods: A total of 106 elderly hypertensive patients were included and divided into OSAS group (n = 45) and non-OSAS group (n = 61), according to whether they combined with OSAS. OSAS was monitored with a portable polysomnography monitor by monitoring sleep and breathing. The cognitive dysfunction of the patients was evaluated using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Basic data and MoCA scores of the patients were compared between the OSAS group and non-OSAS group. The correlation between OSAS and cognitive dysfunction in patients was evaluated using Pearson’s correlation analysis. Results: The proportion of men (38 vs. 22, p = 0.000), atrial fibrillation (31 vs. 19, p = 0.000), body mass index (27.32 ± 3.85 vs. 21.27 ± 5.90, p = 0.002), systolic pressure (167.76 ± 14.31 vs. 153.22 ± 12.79, p = 0.008), homocysteine (29.71 ± 6.27 vs. 12.50 ± 4.19, p = 0.005), cognitive dysfunction (15 vs. 10, p = 0.042) in patients of the OSAS group were significantly higher compared to patients of the non-OSAS group. Visual space/executive ability (3.12 ± 1.23 vs. 4.75 ± 1.03, p = 0.021), memory (2.48 ± 0.31 vs. 3.71 ± 0.42, p = 0.039), attention (4.15 ± 1.21 vs. 5.12 ± 1.87, p = 0.041), total MoCA scores (20.11 ± 5.09 vs. 25.76 ± 4.31, p = 0.017) in patients in the OSAS group were significantly lower compared to patients in the non-OSAS group. OSAS was positively correlated with cognitive dysfunction in elderly patients with hypertension (r = 0.224, p < 0.05). Conclusions: OSAS was positively correlated with cognitive dysfunction in elderly patients with hypertension, so OSAS could increase the risk of cognitive dysfunction through its own adverse effects or its accompanying disease status.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".