ArticlePatient preference and adherence2026
A Baseline Prediction Model for First-Year CPAP Treatment Disengagement in Adults with Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Secondary Analysis of a Danish Cohort.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To estimate and internally evaluate a fixed baseline model for recorded first-year continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment disengagement before device-use data are available and compare it with more complex alternatives. Patients and Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of a Danish single-center cohort that initiated CPAP in 2012-2013. The outcome was the recorded 52-week treatment-status event, which did not distinguish active discontinuation from loss to follow-up. Of 695 participants, 662 had determinate status and 94 events. The fixed logistic model included current smoking, Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score, and apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), with coefficients estimated in 632 complete cases (85 events). Performance was evaluated by repeated 10-fold cross-validation with bootstrap confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Current smoking was associated with higher odds of the recorded outcome (odds ratio [OR] 2.45, 95% CI 1.47-4.07). Higher ESS (OR per 5-point increase, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53-0.87) and AHI (OR per 10 events/hour increase, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.45-0.68) were associated with lower odds. The cross-validated area under the curve was 0.762 (95% CI, 0.709-0.812), the Brier score was 0.103 (0.087-0.119), the calibration intercept was -0.001 (-0.259 to 0.226), and the calibration slope was 0.927 (0.624-1.298). In 662 participants, extended and full models did not consistently improve prediction error. The 94 events could not be separated into active discontinuation and loss to follow-up. Conclusion: Three routinely available baseline measures provided moderate predictive information, while broader and penalized models offered no consistent improvement. These findings provide a fixed-horizon benchmark for external validation in contemporary CPAP cohorts that directly assess device use, treatment preferences, and treatment burden.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.