The association between hypoxic burden and the risk of cognitive impairment in patients with obstructive sleep apnea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with an increasing risk of cognitive impairment, but traditional hypoxic indicators can not accurately identify cognitive impairment. This study aimed to assess a new indicator, hypoxic burden, in cognitive impairment in OSA. METHODS: A total of 116 patients with OSA were enrolled in this study. Daytime sleepiness and cognition were assessed using the Epworth Sleepiness Scales and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), respectively. All participants underwent polysomnography (PSG). The hypoxic burden was derived from PSG and calculated according to a specific algorithm. All the participants were divided into two groups. Seventy-seven were OSA with mild cognitive impairment (OSA + MCI), and 39 were OSA without mild cognitive impairment (OSA-MCI). The relationship between hypoxic burden and cognitive impairment was analyzed by establishing a series of logistic regression models. RESULTS: Hypoxic burden was higher in OSA + MCI group compared with OSA-MCI group, while there was no significance found for the apnea-hypopnea index between the two groups. After adjusting for various confounders, patients with OSA who had a higher total hypoxic burden and rapid eye movement-hypoxic burden in the fourth quartile were found to have an increased risk of MCI compared to those in the first quartile. The adjusted ORs were 7.69 (95% CI, 1.15 to 51.55) and 8.87 (95% CI, 1.22 to 64.34), respectively. However, There was no significant association between the other traditional hypoxic parameters and cognitive function after adjusting for various confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the conventional hypoxic parameter, a higher hypoxic burden is associated with cognition and may be an important indicator for assessing MCI in OSA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".