58. Association between Cognitive Dysfunction and Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Hypertensive Patients: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) is one of the well known disorders known to cause dysfunction in patients life. Thus, affecting the quality of lives of those patients. Several studies have also investigated several factors, such as, hypertension that might increase the risk of developing OSA and Cognitive Dysfunction (CD). We hypothesized that Hypertension can raise the risk of developing in patient (OSA) based on recent studies. Objective: In this study we assessed the relation between increasing the risk of OSA and CD in hypertensive patients. Methods: Studies were extracted from the ScienceDirect, PMC, and Pubmed using MesH terms with “Hypertension” and “Obstructive Sleep Apnea” and “Cognitive Dysfunction” keywords on 6 January 2024. Data were selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Included publications were either randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, cohorts, or observational studies from the past 5 years. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and animal studies were excluded from this study. Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of the studies. Result: After screening Eighteen studies, one cohort and three cross-sectional studies were included with a total of 733 participants. All studies showed good quality based on NOS. Conclusions were drawn from comparing exposed groups and non-exposed groups. Our data confirm that hypertension appears to show higher risk of CD and OSA. Conclusion: This study has found that patients with hypertension appears to show higher risk of CD and OSA. For available findings to be supported and confirmed, more research is required.
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 | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".