Positive airway pressure therapy adherence and outcomes in obstructive sleep apnea: An exploratory longitudinal retrospective randomized chart review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy is prescribed to patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). A commonly used definition for PAP therapy adherence is based upon the minimum requirements to receive Medicare coverage in the US, defined as PAP usage of four or more hours per night on 70 percent of nights for at least 30 consecutive days. However, little evidence exists to support this definition for PAP therapy adherence. Therefore, the present study sought to determine the efficacy of the present definition of PAP therapy adherence on longitudinal outcomes in patients with OSA, using objectively measured PAP device usage time. Methods: An exploratory longitudinal, retrospective, randomized chart review was done to assess clinical outcomes between patients with OSA who were defined as PAP therapy adherent (n=50) and non-adherent (n=50) during an eight-year observation period. Results: No significant differences were shown between groups for mortality, hospitalizations, or development of co-morbidities during the observation period. However, logistic regression showed significantly higher odds of adherence in male patients compared to female patients (OR=8.519; 95%CI=1.301-55.756; p=0.025) and significantly lower odds of adherence in patients with higher normal (OR=0.039; 95%CI=0.005-0.392; p=0.003), mild excessive (OR=0.039; 95%CI=0.003-0.517; p=0.014), and severe excessive (OR=0.088; 95%CI=0.012-0.635; p=0.016) daytime sleepiness compared to patients with lower normal daytime sleepiness. An increasing number of hospitalizations also corresponded with a significant decrease in odds of being adherent (OR=0.741; 95%CI=0.551-0.995; p=0.046). Conclusion: The present study supports a steadily growing body of literature calling for more consideration and evidence to support a definition of PAP therapy adherence that is clinically meaningful.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".