MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132985284

The influence of continuous positive airway pressure on cardiac autonomic regulation and ventricular repolarization in patients with congestive heart failure and obstructive sleep apnea

2004· dissertation· W7132985284 on OpenAlexaff
M. Gilman

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2004
Typedissertation
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContinuous positive airway pressureHeart failureHeart rateObstructive sleep apneaHeart rate variabilityAutonomic nervous systemBlood pressureApnea
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and congestive heart failure (CHF) are conditions characterized by derangements of repolarization and autonomic cardiovascular regulation. Typically, there is an augmentation in sympathetic activity and vagal activity is depressed. OSA often coexists with CHF but it is not clear whether it has additional effects on the neural control of heart rate and repolarization. It was found that CPAP increased high frequency heart rate variability an indicator of vagal modulation of heart rate and improved ventricular repolarization, as manifested by a decrease in the QT variability index. Sleep is accompanied by increases in vagal activity and reductions in sympathetic tone. However, periodic apneas can reverse this and can have lasting effects into wakefulness. We performed a randomized controlled trial involving CHF patients with OSA to test the hypothesis that treatment of OSA by continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) would improve vagal heart rate modulation and ventricular repolarization.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchFrench-language works237,207