MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1503690563

Telehealth support system for evaluation of continuous positive airway pressure treatment

2007· article· en· W1503690563 on OpenAlexaff
Mila Kwiatkowska, Andrew Idzikowski, Les Matthews

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContinuous positive airway pressureTelemedicineTelehealthMedicineMedical emergencyObstructive sleep apneaPhysical therapyIntensive care medicineHealth careInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a telehealth system for the support and evaluation of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment in patients with obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea (OSAH). The Web-based system supports the patients in the initial months of the CPAP therapy, especially, the patients from remote areas with limited access to specialized clinics. The system has four major functions: (1) to facilitate patient's education and communication with the clinic, (2) to collect and store subjective self-reported data, physiologic information, and objective CPAP usage data, (3) to analyse patient's compliance, and (4) to assess effectiveness of CPAP treatment. The telemedicine system consists of four modules: (1) a Web-based interface for the patients and health practitioners, (2) a database system for self-reported data, physiologic information, objective CPAP usage data (downloaded from the machine), and patient's records, (3) an analytical system for measuring the compliance, and (4) a rule-based system for the evaluation of effectiveness of CPAP treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.010

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research→French-language works237,207→