Long‐Term Compliance with Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is an effective treatment for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). However, compliance is a significant problem and has been incompletely assessed in long-term studies. OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term compliance of OSA patients with CPAP therapy. SUBJECTS: Eighty patients who had had a diagnosis of OSA at least four years previously and received a written prescription for CPAP were evaluated. METHODS: Subjects were identified by reviewing sleep laboratory records. Participants were contacted by telephone and were asked to quantitate their CPAP use (hours per night, nights per week) and to evaluate whether there had been improvement in symptoms. Those who commenced but subsequently abandoned therapy and those who never initiated treatment were questioned about their reasons for noncompliance. RESULTS: Patient demographics included mean (+/- SD) age (58+/-11 years), male sex (70 of 80 patients [88%]) and mean apnea-hypopnea index (70+/-44 events/h). At the time of the interview (64.0+/-3.7 months after diagnosis), 43 of 80 patients (54%) were still using CPAP and most reported an improvement in symptoms. Twelve of 80 patients (15%) had abandoned CPAP after using it for 10.1+/-15.5 months, and 25 of 80 patients (31%) had never commenced therapy after initial diagnosis and CPAP titration. Analysis of scores reflecting initial patient sleepiness revealed a significant association of this symptom with subsequent CPAP compliance. CONCLUSION: Although many patients with OSA derive subjective benefit from, and adhere to treatment with CPAP, a significant proportion of those so diagnosed either do not initiate or eventually abandon therapy. Initial experience with CPAP appears to be important, reinforcing the need for early education and support in these patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".