Examining the impact of obstructive sleep apnea on cognitive function in severe COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to examine the association between obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and cognitive function in patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: Patients with severe COPD, who had not previously been diagnosed with OSA, were recruited between January 2021 and January 2023. To evaluate cognitive function, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), a continuous reaction time test (CRT) and a driving simulator were used. OSA was identified using a CardioRespiratory Monitor (CRM). Cognitive tests were repeated for patients who were identified with and received treatment for OSA, to determine whether treatment improved cognitive function. RESULTS: In total, 80 patients participated in the study and 50 patients (63%) were diagnosed with OSA, with or without nocturnal desaturation (ND), and six patients (8%) with ND only. Thirty-two patients (40%) had mild OSA and 18 (23%) had moderate/severe OSA. We found no statistically significant difference in the prevalence of cognitive impairment (CI) between patients with and without OSA and/or ND. However, a multiple regression analysis showed that patients with moderate/severe OSA had a significant lower CRT-index, indicating a decrease in attention and reaction time, compared to patients with mild OSA. CONCLUSION: In patients with COPD and OSA, the degree of CI may depend on the severity of OSA. The 23% prevalence of moderate/severe OSA emphasizes the importance of OSA screening in severe COPD. The study was registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov in March 2020, with the identification number NCT04458038.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".