Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to determine the association between obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH). A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A search of electronic information through MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library was conducted to identify all studies reporting the association between OSA and IIH. The primary outcome was the prevalence of OSA. A random effects model was used for the analysis. Of 1469 studies identified, eight studies enrolling 241 patients were included. Overall, the pooled estimate of the proportion of OSA in patients with IIH was 0.424 (95% CI: 0.258 to 0.609), indicating a significant association (p < .05). In subgroup analysis, individuals with confirmed OSA diagnosis exhibited a prevalence rate of 0.407 (CI: 0.235 to 0.604, p < .05). For those with a positive OSA screening, the prevalence rate was 0.464 (CI: 0.043 to 0.943, p < .05). Clinicians should screen for OSA in patients with newly diagnosed IIH.
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 | 0.015 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".