Poster (Knowledge Generation) ID 1969163
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background This ongoing study aims to examine the potential cognitive and psycho-social benefits of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy in people with chronic spinal cord injury (SCI) and moderate-to-severe sleep apnea (SA). Methods This study included adults with chronic SCI who underwent a 4-month trial of CPAP therapy for management of recently diagnosed moderate-to-severe SA. Outcome measures included the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-SS), Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), Depression, Anxiety & Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), SF-36, and Craig Handicap Assessment & Reporting Technique (CHART). The participants were also asked about their lived experience before and after CPAP trial (qualitative analysis). Results By February 2023, we screened 33 individuals (10 females, 23 males; age range: 37-79 years; mean age: 58.3 years) with motor complete (n=15) or incomplete SCI at cervical (n=22) or thoracic levels. Time since SCI varied from 4 to 793 months. The apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) varied from 2.6 to 83.7 events/hour. Of the 33 individuals, 25 participants with moderate-to-severe SA initiated CPAP therapy; 19 individuals have completed the CPAP trial. Daytime sleepiness and sleep quality, fatigue and quality of life significantly improved with CPAP therapy. There was a trend for improvement of cognitive, mental health and participation scores, but they have not reached significance yet (p=0.079, p=0.207, p=0.221, respectively). Conclusions Our preliminary results suggest that 4 months of CPAP therapy significantly improves sleep quality, and quality of life, and mitigates daytime sleepiness, fatigue, and anxiety in people with chronic SCI.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.934 | 0.759 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".