MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Characterizing High-risk Respiratory Events for Predicting Cardiovascular Disease and All-cause Mortality in Obstructive Sleep Apnea

2025· article· en· W4410273871 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammadreza Hajipour, Mehrdad Mehrjoo, Scott A. Sands, Andrew Wellman, G.P. Labarca, Nafiseh Esmaeil, D.P. White, Najib Ayas, Susan Redline, Ali Azarbarzin

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia HospitalUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObstructive sleep apneaSleep apneaDiseaseRespiratory systemApneaIntensive care medicineRespiratory diseaseCardiologyInternal medicineLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality. OSA severity is currently measured by summarizing all respiratory events and providing a summary metric per subject without considering the within-subject heterogeneity of events. This study proposes using an unsupervised clustering method to identify similar respiratory events based on their characteristics. We hypothesize that respiratory event subtypes vary in their associations with increased risk of CVD and all-cause mortality. Methods: Participants in the Sleep Heart Health Study who underwent baseline polysomnography (PSG)(N=5633) were included. K-means clustering was used to cluster respiratory events ( ≥30% reduction in airflow lasting ≥10 seconds regardless of desaturation/arousal) of all individuals (n= 1,015,521) based on severity features (i.e., event duration, desaturation depth, area under the desaturation curve)) and physiologic responses (heart rate response [difference between the minimum and maximum heart rate]). EEG features, including the ratio of EEG power (after/before event) in beta and delta bands, were tested in a secondary analysis. The elbow method was used to select the optimal number of clusters. Subsequently, the frequency of respiratory events (i.e. apnea-hypopnea index(AHI)) within each cluster was quantified, resulting in multiple AHIs per participant. Finally, we examined the associations of cluster-based AHIs with CVD and all-cause mortality, controlling for relevant confounders. Results: The sample had a median[IQR] age=63[55, 72]years, and mean±standard deviation(SD) of follow-up time=11±3.1years). The elbow method identified three clusters(NC1=624,324, NC2=143,183, NC3=248,014), resulting in three different AHIs per subject(mean(SD) AHIC1 =18.7(12.5), AHIC2=4.2 (5.0), AHIC3=7.5(10.6), events/hour) (preliminary results)). Cox regression models revealed a significant association between AHIC3 and all-cause mortality (HR=1.06[1.01,1.12]SD;p=0.024) and between AHIC1 and incident CVD (HR=1.08[1.01,1.15]SD;p=0.02)). The other AHIs were not associated with these outcomes. Respiratory events in cluster3(24% of events) were characterized by an average event duration of 24.7[18.6;33.0]seconds, desaturation depth of 6.0[4.0;9.0], desaturation area of 2.3[1.65; 3.3]%min, and heart rate response of 11.0[8.0; 16.0]beats/min. The cluster 1(14% of events) features were characterized by an average event duration= 16.20[13.30;21.10]seconds, desaturation area of 0.15[0.03;0.25]%min). Finally, adding EEG features did not change the number of clusters or cluster characteristics. Conclusion: In this study, we showed that specific clusters of respiratory events significantly predicted increased risk of CVD and mortality in a community-based study of middle-aged and older adults. Ongoing analyses are assessing generalizability in an independent dataset.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine→Same topicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research→French-language works237,207→