S23 Obstructive sleep apnoea and metabolic syndrome in adults: evidence from case-control studies of a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adults with Obstructive Sleep Apnoea (OSA) are considered to exhibit a higher risk of developing metabolic syndrome (MetS), with published data indicating that both conditions frequently co-exist. However, the strength and consistency of these data across epidemiological study designs remain unclear. The present analysis pools the odds ratio of MetS in adults with polysomnography-confirmed OSA compared to controls without OSA, based on case-control studies identified within the context of a broader systematic review. We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed primary research articles published in English until November 2024 from four databases (Ovid Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane). A total of 81 primary studies, including case-control, cross-sectional, cohort study designs, and randomised clinical trials, were eligible for inclusion and data extraction. Herein, we meta-analysed the identified seven eligible case-control studies for this interim evidence synthesis. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model, and the summary effect estimate is reported. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot and Egger’s test. The protocol is registered in PROSPERO 2025 CRD420251073055. The seven case-control studies comprised 477 OSA cases and 425 controls (predominantly males with age ranging between 45 and 50 years). Adults with OSA had almost 3.5-fold higher odds of having MetS compared to their counterparts without the disease (OR = 3.47; 95% CI: 1.63 - 7.39) (figure 1). Moderate heterogeneity was evident across these studies (I2 = 66.5%, Q (6) = 17.9, p < .01). No publication bias was detected. The present findings suggest that adults with OSA have a significantly higher risk of MetS. Despite the strength of these findings, interpretation should also be cautious due to the limited number of studies and their observational design. Additional analyses including all identified study designs are planned, and will be presented in a systematic review and three-level meta-analysis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".