MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1514616841 · doi:10.1155/2006/627096

Canadian Thoracic Society Guidelines: Diagnosis and Treatment of Sleep Disordered Breathing in Adults

2006· article· en· W1514616841 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Respiratory Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsStornoway Diamond (Canada)Vancouver Coastal Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialCohortSleep disordered breathingFamily medicineGerontologyDemographySurgeryInternal medicineObstructive sleep apnea

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of sleep disordered breathing in adults were developed over the past year. A one-day meeting was held in Montreal, Quebec, on October 28, 2005, just before the annual CTS meeting. The meeting was facilitated by Dr R Davies (Oxford, United Kingdom), and speakers included D Morrison (Halifax, Nova Scotia), J Kimoff (Montreal), J Fleetham (Vancouver, British Columbia), C George (London, Ontario), M Kryger (Winnipeg, Manitoba), P Hanly (Calgary, Alberta), F Hill (Saskatoon, Saskatchewan), D Bradley (Toronto, Ontario), N Ayas (Vancouver), M Fitzpatrick (Kingston, Ontario), F Series (Quebec City, Quebec), K Ferguson (London) and W Tsai (Calgary). This meeting was attended by 28 Canadian physicians with an interest in sleep disordered breathing. A draft of an Executive Summary was developed, and then reviewed and finalized by the CTS Sleep Disordered Breathing Committee at a one-day meeting in Toronto on February 17, 2006. The Committee members then individually ranked the level of evidence as: grade A – high-quality meta-analysis or single randomized clinical trial (RCT) that had a low risk of bias; grade B – high-quality systematic review of cohort studies or single cohort study with a low risk of bias or extrapolated evidence from high-quality RCTs or RCTs with a risk of bias; grade C – case-control studies or cohort studies with a risk of bias; or grade D – case series, case reports or expert opinion. The Committee members also ranked their agreement with each statement (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree or strongly disagree). No statement was included unless at least 90% of the Committee either strongly agreed or agreed with it.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.856

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.288 · 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