Do Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome Patients Underestimate Their Daytime Symptoms before Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Treatment?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Daytime somnolence is an important feature of the obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) hypopnea syndrome and is usually subjectively assessed using the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). OBJECTIVE: To compare the scores of the ESS and different domains of the Quebec Sleep Questionnaire (QSQ) assessed before and after the first months of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment, as well as retrospectively without treatment. METHODS: The ESS score and domain scores of the QSQ were obtained before and after a three-month period of CPAP treatment using a retrospective assessment of the pretreatment scores in 76 untreated OSA patients. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients completed the study. The ESS and QSQ scores significantly improved following CPAP therapy. Retrospective evaluation of the ESS score was significantly worse than pre- and post-treatment values (mean [± SD] pretreatment score 11.0±4.8; retrospective pretreatment score 13.5±5.1). Such differences were not observed in any domain of the QSQ, including the domain assessing hypersomnolence. CONCLUSION: OSA patients underestimated their sleepiness according to the most widely used instrument to assess hypersomnolence. This finding may not be observed with other methods used to assess OSA-related symptoms such as quality of life questionnaires.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".