An Empirical Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Trial for Suspected Obstructive Sleep Apnea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Standard practice in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) management requires that a positive diagnostic, overnight polysomnography (PSG) test be obtained before initiating treatment. However, long waiting times due to lack of access to PSG testing facilities may delay the initiation of definitive treatment for OSA. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the response of patients who had a high clinical suspicion for OSA and who were waiting for a PSG test to an empirical continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) trial. METHODS: A retrospective study of all patients who had been offered empirical CPAP therapy for suspected OSA was conducted. After outpatient assessment, 183 patients with a high pretest probability of having OSA began empirical CPAP testing using an arbitrary CPAP pressure. The presence of OSA, the accuracy of empirical CPAP pressure prescription, the adherence to empirical CPAP and the improvement in daytime somnolence were evaluated at the time of PSG. RESULTS: Of 183 patients on a CPAP trial, 91% had OSA, which was at least moderate (more than 15 apneas and hypopneas per hour of sleep) in 75% of the patients. Eighty per cent of the patients had significant daytime somnolence (Epworth Sleepiness Scale [ESS] greater than 10, mean +/- SD ESS 14+/-5), which improved with CPAP (ESS 9.0+/-5, P<0.01). In 40% of the patients, the arbitrary CPAP pressure was lower than that determined by manual titration. Adherence to a trial of CPAP (longer than 2 h/night) predicted OSA with a sensitivity of 82% and a specificity of 41%; the positive and negative predictive values were 92% and 22%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: At the time of PSG testing, OSA was present in 91% of the patients who had received empirical CPAP. An empirical CPAP provided satisfactory interim treatment for excessive somnolence, despite the fact that the CPAP pressure was suboptimal in 40% of the 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".