Search results

I'll also note that while 15/18 had AHI >= 5 in the observational portion, in this trial one more participant reached that threshold, making it 16/18 with AHI >= 5. After accounting for one participant who dropped out before the trial, 7/8 participants receiving active CPAP had obstructive sleep...

My focus is on standard criteria because it is already treatable, meaning anyone could have correctly guessed the result of the trial before it happened. So I don't see the trial as providing evidence for any novel hypotheses.

If 90% of people with insomnia had OSA, then I'd say they should get treated and if they don't have insomnia anymore then OSA may have been causing their insomnia. If a representative sample of GWI had increased rates of sleep disorders compared to the general population matched for BMI, then...

I count 9/11 with AHI less than 5 in table 3. I just can not see what these demonstrate that would be useful for UARS. Unless the majority of people with GWI have OSA, which I doubt, this isn't representative of GWI. It seems to be very selected for people with diagnosable sleep problems that...

Pipeline-optimized machine learning for chronic fatigue syndrome diagnosis: A lightweight, interpretable model using blood biochemical and metabolomic data [Line breaks added] Introduction and Background Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a debilitating multisystem disorder with persistent...

Pointed out by nataliezzz in the thread for the trial on the same participants: Okay, I see now in the table in post #3 that nearly all cases fulfilled criteria for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and nearly all controls didn't. (Also, the data for % flow limited for one of the two controls with...

Almost all of these individuals could have gone to a sleep doctor and been prescribed the same treatment. There are surely already many other trials showing that CPAP improves symptoms in individuals with OSA. So I'm not seeing what new information this study provides.

Thanks for the quotes, but they don't really answer the question for me. I didn't know the criteria, but you're saying 15/18 participants had diagnosable OSA? If the goal is to show that CPAP works for non-apnea related flow limitation or for GWI, the trial should exclude those with OSA...

Note the discussion on another thread which includes the following about a Canadian journal: The New Yorker: Did a Celebrated Researcher Obscure a Baby’s Poisoning?

Are they saying that for the entire trial, the CPAP would only turn on after the individual fell asleep, and then turn off after 3 hours? The following sentence is in the section about the in-lab pre-trial tuning of the settings. And I'm not sure if the CPAP device is able to only turn [edit...

I would assume they used the same equipment. I'm encompassing any possible change that could have happened between the two groups being tested separately. Maybe the seasons and weather changed and had some effect on sleep. Maybe a different technician attached the equipment to the second group...

Maybe related to a batch effect of doing the sleep study on all the cases before they had finished recruiting the controls: To me, it seems too good to be true to have that good of separation. Especially as this is a 15 year old study. I would expect a biomarker that perfectly separates groups...

Note that the thread has been split into two threads. The other paper for the CPAP trial is here: The effect of nasal continuous positive airway pressure on the symptoms of Gulf War illness, 2011, Amin et al

Link to thread for an observational study with the same 18 subjects: Inspiratory airflow dynamics during sleep in veterans with Gulf War illness: A controlled study, 2011, Amin et al.

I haven't read the paper, but that's a very striking table. Zero overlap between groups for % flow limited

I'm curious how good the blinding is. It refers to another paper for a description of the sham treatment: That paper cites ref 10: Sham continuous positive airway pressure for placebo-controlled studies in sleep apnoea I may be misunderstanding, but it seems they are saying they validated...

Comment on PubPeer about that figure:

Extracellular Vesicle Protein and MiRNA Signatures as Biomarkers for Post-Infectious ME/CFS Patients [Line breaks added] Abstract Post-infectious Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) is a chronic disease with unresolved pathophysiology and limited diagnostic options...

Neuroscience News: "Home Drinking Water May Impact Parkinson’s Risk" Link Younger Groundwater Associated with Greater Risk of Parkinson’s Disease in Nationwide Medicare Study: Implications of Aquifer Type Renee Tessman, Michelle Uher PDF | American Academy of Neurology | Abstract Only

I think you might be looking at the p-value, which isn't a measure of effect size. The difference between groups looks to be 0.059.