Cannabinoid Use and Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Background: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a sleep disorder with no widely accepted pharmacological therapy. Cannabinoids have been suggested to reduce OSA severity in small human studies. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to explore the association of self-reported cannabis use on OSA severity and sleep parameters in a large cohort of adults undergoing in-laboratory polysomnography. Methods: Sleep and medication data were collected for all consecutive adults who completed diagnostic polysomnography at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre from 2010 to 2022. Multivariable linear regression models were employed that adjusted for age, sex, and BMI (minimally adjusted model), as well as medication and comorbidity data (maximally adjusted model). An exploratory subgroup analysis was additionally run in patients with moderate to severe OSA. Results: Of 6,958 individuals (mean age 54.7 ± 16.3, BMI 29.1 ± 6.8, 51.0% female), 71 reported cannabis use. In our minimally adjusted models, cannabis use predicted a reduced respiratory disturbance index (RDI) (β: −4.8 [95% CI: −9.4, −0.2]; p = 0.042); this association became nonsignificant in the fully adjusted models. In an exploratory analysis of patients with moderate to severe OSA (n = 613), cannabis use (n = 7) predicted increased stage N3 sleep (β: 33.5 [95% CI: 15.6, 51.4]; p < 0.001) and decreased REM sleep (β: 16.0 [95% CI: 0.3, 31.7]; p = 0.046). Conclusion: Self-reported cannabis use was not associated with OSA severity after adjusting for confounders. In an exploratory subgroup analysis of patients with moderate to severe OSA, cannabis use impacted sleep architecture. Future studies should further explore these findings.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".