MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415351137 · doi:10.1007/s11325-025-03509-7

Prevalence of cognitive impairment among adults with obstructive sleep apnea: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4415351137 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kailin Su, Zhenzhen Feng, Lu Wang, Guixiang Zhao, Jiansheng Li

Bibliographic record

VenueSleep And Breathing · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYoung Scientists FundHenan Provincial Key Laboratory of Materials on Deep‐Earth EngineeringNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsObstructive sleep apneaCognitive impairmentNeurologyPublic healthCognitionEpidemiologyMEDLINESleep (system call)Otorhinolaryngology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Cognitive impairment in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) poses a growing public health challenge. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to estimate the prevalence of cognitive impairment among adults with OSA. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from database inception to February 2, 2025 for studies on cognitive impairment in OSA adults. OSA diagnosis requires formal clinical confirmation through objective testing; cognitive impairment is assessed using validated standardized instruments. Meta-analysis was executed via Stata 17.0, with publication bias assessed by funnel plots and Egger's test. RESULTS: Across 23 studies involving 33,226 individuals, the pooled prevalence of cognitive impairment among adult OSA patients was 36.92% (95% CI: 26.62-47.23). Subgroup analyses indicated that the prevalence of 32.22% (95% CI: 12.57-55.60) in mild OSA cases, 36.79% (95% CI: 11.13-67.06) in moderate cases, and 44.46% (95% CI: 30.38-58.98) in severe cases; polysomnography (PSG)-based studies reported a higher prevalence at 38.61% (95% CI: 31.94-45.27) than home sleep apnea testing (HSAT) at 26.85% (95% CI: 19.34-34.36). Prevalence varied significantly by cognitive assessment tool: Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) yielded 42.20% (95% CI: 34.83-49.57), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) 17.51% (95% CI: 14.07-20.94), Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) 54.24% (95% CI: 40.75-67.28), and Critical Flicker Frequency (CFF) 27.66% (95% CI: 15.62-42.64). The South-East Asia Region exhibited the highest pooled prevalence at 62.32% (95% CI: 56.86-67.78), followed by the Western Pacific Region at 37.70% (95% CI: 28.50-46.91), the Region of the Americas at 34.21% (95% CI: 5.68-62.74), the Eastern Mediterranean Region at 33.25% (95% CI: 29.91-36.71), and the European Region at 24.89% (95% CI: 19.26-30.52); 46.98% (95% CI, 27.86-66.10) in males and 59.24% (95% CI, 53.20-65.29) in females. CONCLUSION: The high prevalence of cognitive impairment among adults with OSA highlights the need for increased attention from public health departments. Multinational longitudinal studies using standardized protocols are needed to optimize relevant evidence-based management strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.532
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSleep And BreathingSame topicObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchFrench-language works237,207