Prevalence of persistent sleep apnea in patients treated with continuous positive airway pressure.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: There are limited data on the prevalence of persistent obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in patients who are clinically asymptomatic with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). Our objectives were to estimate the prevalence of persistent OSA and to explore the parameters that may be capable of discriminating these patients. DESIGN: Prospective survey. SETTING: A tertiary-care sleep-disorders clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive patients treated with single-pressure CPAP for at least 3 months were studied. All had undergone CPAP titrations and were compliant with treatment. They denied snoring or persistent excessive daytime somnolence. Of 114 who qualified, 101 were studied. INTERVENTIONS: Subjects underwent 16-channel polysomnography with electroencephalogram and pneumotachometer while using their CPAP. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Seventeen of 101 subjects (17%) had an apnea-hypopnea index of over 10. Fifty-one had only split-night protocols for CPAP titration. There was no significant difference between participants with persistent OSA and those with an apnea-hypopnea index < 5 with regard to age, sex, time since diagnosis, reported snoring, change in weight, or quality of life (all p > .10). Mean current CPAP level was higher, with a mean +/- SD 10.6 +/- 2.8 versus 8.6 +/- 2.3 cm H2O (p = .002). Unresolved air leak related to CPAP was more frequent in the patients with persistent OSA. Morning headaches, nonrestorative sleep, and frequent central apneas on the CPAP titration were all associated with persistent OSA. CONCLUSIONS: Persistent OSA is frequent in patients treated with CPAP. This is more frequent in patients with high body mass index, higher prescribed pressures, and unresolved mask leak.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".