Fibromyalgia in obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Fibromyalgia (FM) is a common condition in patients with obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate differences in sleep monitoring indicators between patients with OSAHS and positive FM and patients with OSAHS and negative FM and to determine the incidence of FM in patients with OSAHS. Methods: An exhaustive literature review was conducted to analyze the incidence of FM in patients with OSAHS, using online databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wanfang, both in English and Chinese. The quality of the included studies was assessed by two researchers using the Newcastle−Ottawa Scale scores. The acquired data were analyzed using Stata 11.0 software. Continuous variables were combined and analyzed using the weighted mean difference as the effect size. Conjoint analyses were performed using random-effects (I2 > 50%) or fixed-effect (I2 ≤ 50%) models based on I2 values. Results: Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria. This study showed that 21% of patients with OSAHS experienced FM. Subgroup analyses were performed based on race, age, sex, body mass index, and diagnostic criteria for patients with OSAHS. These findings indicate that obese patients with OSAHS have a higher risk of FM, similar to females with OSAHS. Regarding most sleep monitoring indicators, there were no discernible differences between patients with OSAHS with positive FM and those with negative FM. However, patients with positive FM had marginally lower minimum arterial oxygen saturation levels than those with negative FM. The current literature suggests that patients with OSAHS have a high incidence of FM (21%), and FM has little effect on polysomnographic indicators of OSAHS. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024510786 , identifier CRD42024510786
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 | 0.013 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".