Evaluation of arterial stiffness and quality of life in the treatment of moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea with Continuous Positive Airway Pressure or Mandibular Advancement Appliance: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is highly associated with a significant reduction in the Quality of Life (QoL) and is associated with deleterious effects on the cardiovascular system. Arterial stiffness is characterized by morphofunctional changes in the arteries and its assessment can be obtained non-invasively mainly through the measurement of pulse wave velocity (PWV). Arterial stiffness has been proposed as a predictor of cardiovascular diseases. OBJECTIVE: To compare arterial stiffness as well as QoL in patients diagnosed with moderate to severe OSA treated with Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) or Mandibular Advancement Appliance (MAA) therapies. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study involving 105 participants diagnosed with moderate to severe OSA categorized into three independent groups: A Non-treated Control Group and CPAP and MAA treated Groups. QoL was assessed by the Quebec Sleep Questionnaire (QSQ) and arterial stiffness was assessed noninvasively by Mobil-O-Graph. RESULTS: saturation (p = 0.011) (evaluated to diagnose the OSA condition before treatment) and Body Mass Index (BMI) (p < 0.001). The MAA group presented higher scores in all QoL domains (p < 0.05), except Social Interactions in relation to the Control group. For the CPAP group, only Nocturnal Symptoms presented significantly higher scores compared to the control group (p = 0.39). For Arterial Stiffness, no statistical differences were observed among comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show better QoL scores in patients with OSA treated by CPAP and mainly by MAA. Differently, arterial stiffness parameters did not differ between the groups treated with CPAP and MAA and the control group.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".