The relationship between disease severity, treatment adherence, inflammation, and neurocognitive functions in patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obstructive: Sleep Apnea Syndrome (OSAS) is a condition marked by recurrent interruptions in airflow during sleep, causing intermittent hypoxia and inflammation. These changes adversely affect neurocognitive functions. OSAS is linked to impairments in executive functions, memory, attention, and intellectual capacity. This study aims to evaluate the effects of OSAS on cognitive functions and inflammatory markers and the impact of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) treatment. Methods: This retrospective study included 106 OSAS patients and 49 healthy controls, classified based on their Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI) and CPAP treatment adherence. Patients in the treatment group used CPAP for at least 4 hours daily over 3 months. Cognitive performance was measured using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and inflammatory markers such as Platelet Distribution Width (PDW), Platelet-Lymphocyte Ratio (PLR), and Neutrophil-Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR) were analyzed. Results: MoCA scores showed significant declines in cognitive functions across all OSAS groups (p < 0.001), with notable reductions in executive functions, language, and abstraction. Treated patients showed higher cognitive scores, though differences were not statistically significant. PDW, PLR, and NLR levels were significantly lower in the CPAP-treated group compared to untreated patients. Conclusion: Untreated OSAS significantly affects cognitive functions, particularly executive functions, language, and abstraction. CPAP treatment provides partial cognitive improvement and reduces inflammatory markers like PLR, PDW, and NLR. These markers may be valuable in assessing treatment effects and detecting suspected OSAS. Further research with larger cohorts is needed to validate these findings and enhance clinical management.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".