Cited by 290Obstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchNeuroscience of respiration and sleepRespiratory Support and Mechanisms

Quantifying the ventilatory control contribution to sleep apnoea using polysomnography

Open access
Terrill, Philip I., Edwards, Bradley A., Nemati, Shamim, Butler, James P., Owens, Robert L., Eckert, Danny J., White, David P., Malhotra, Atul +2 more·2015·European Respiratory Journal

Abstract

Elevated loop gain, consequent to hypersensitive ventilatory control, is a primary nonanatomical cause of obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) but it is not possible to quantify this in the clinic. Here we provide a novel method to estimate loop gain in OSA patients using routine clinical polysomnography alone. We use the concept that spontaneous ventilatory fluctuations due to apnoeas/hypopnoeas (disturbance) result in opposing changes in ventilatory drive (response) as determined by loop gain (response/disturbance). Fitting a simple ventilatory control model (including chemical and arousal contributions to ventilatory drive) to the ventilatory pattern of OSA reveals the underlying loop gain. Following mathematical-model validation, we critically tested our method in patients with OSA by comparison with a standard (continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) drop method), and by assessing its ability to detect the known reduction in loop gain with oxygen and acetazolamide. Our method quantified loop gain from baseline polysomnography (correlation versus CPAP-estimated loop gain: n=28; r=0.63, p<0.001), detected the known reduction in loop gain with oxygen (n=11; mean±sem change in loop gain (ΔLG) −0.23±0.08, p=0.02) and acetazolamide (n=11; ΔLG −0.20±0.06, p=0.005), and predicted the OSA response to loop gain-lowering therapy. We validated a means to quantify the ventilatory control contribution to OSA pathogenesis using clinical polysomnography, enabling identification of likely responders to therapies targeting ventilatory control.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1183/09031936.00062914

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • It may be possible to quantify loop gain directly from in-lab or home sleep studies.

    “It may be possible to quantify loop gain directly from inlab or home sleep studies.369–371”

    From International Consensus Statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (2023) · cites this paper as [371]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says loop gain can be quantified from routine clinical polysomnography, and Methodological considerations specifies that the study used data from an in-laboratory clinical environment. Our copy does not establish that the method works with home sleep studies, so the home-study part of the claim is unsupported by this source. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Terrill, P. I., Edwards, B. A., Nemati, S., Butler, J. P., Owens, R. L., Eckert, D. J., White, D. P., Malhotra, A., Wellman, A., & Sands, S. A.
Affiliations
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
Venue
European Respiratory Journal
Published
2014-10-16
Volume
45
Issue
2
Pages
408-418
ISSN
  • 0903-1936 (ISSN-L)
  • 1399-3003
OpenAlex
W2147045852
Cited by
289
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 8
FWCI
10.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Respiratory Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (UNSW Sydney) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • American Heart Association
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital
  • National Institutes of Health (1r01hl090897-01a2, 1k24hl093218-01a1)
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (1064163, 1035115, 1053201, 1049814)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01-HL090897, P01HL095491, K24 HL-093218, R01HL085188, 1R01HL090897-01A2, 1K24HL093218-01A1, R01HL048531)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Endocrine and Autonomic Systems › Neuroscience of respiration and sleep
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
Keywords
obstructive sleep apnea, ventilation control, loop gain, respiratory drive, polysomnography, arousal, oxygen therapy, acetazolamide, treatment response prediction
MeSH terms
Acetazolamide, Adult, Computer Simulation, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Theoretical, Oscillometry, Oxygen, Patient Compliance, Phenotype, Respiration, Retrospective Studies, Sleep, Polysomnography, Sleep Apnea, Obstructive, Continuous Positive Airway Pressure

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review