Polysomnographic characteristics of excessive daytime sleepiness phenotypes in obstructive sleep apnea: results from the international sleep apnea global interdisciplinary consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) is a major symptom of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Traditional polysomnographic (PSG) measures only partially explain EDS in OSA. This study analyzed traditional and novel PSG characteristics of two different measures of EDS among patients with OSA. METHODS: Sleepiness was assessed using the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (>10 points defined as "risk of dozing") and a measure of general sleepiness (feeling sleepy ≥ 3 times/week defined as "feeling sleepy"). Four sleepiness phenotypes were identified: "non-sleepy," "risk of dozing only," "feeling sleepy only," and "both at risk of dozing and feeling sleepy." RESULTS: Altogether, 2083 patients with OSA (69% male) with an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) ≥ 5 events/hour were studied; 46% were "non-sleepy," 26% at "risk of dozing only," 7% were "feeling sleepy only," and 21% reported both. The two phenotypes at "risk of dozing" had higher AHI, more severe hypoxemia (as measured by oxygen desaturation index, minimum and average oxygen saturation [SpO2], time spent < 90% SpO2, and hypoxic impacts) and they spent less time awake, had shorter sleep latency, and higher heart rate response to arousals than "non-sleepy" and "feeling sleepy only" phenotypes. While statistically significant, effect sizes were small. Sleep stages, frequency of arousals, wake after sleep onset and limb movement did not differ between sleepiness phenotypes after adjusting for confounders. CONCLUSIONS: In a large international group of patients with OSA, PSG characteristics were weakly associated with EDS. The physiological measures differed among individuals characterized as "risk of dozing" or "non-sleepy," while "feeling sleepy only" did not differ from "non-sleepy" individuals.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".