An observational study of the effectiveness of alternative care providers in the management of obstructive sleep apnea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alternative care providers have been proposed as a substitute for physician-based management of obstructive sleep apnea. The purpose of this study was to describe the clinical course of patients with a new diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea who were treated with continuous positive airway pressure and followed by alternative care providers at a tertiary care sleep clinic. It was hypothesized that care by alternative care providers would result in improvement of daytime sleepiness and satisfactory treatment adherence, and that a specific number of follow-up visits could be identified after which clinical outcomes no longer improved. The Epworth Sleepiness Scale score was measured for each patient at baseline and at each alternative care provider visit. Patients were discharged when they demonstrated a significant improvement in sleepiness and were adherent to therapy. The Epworth Sleepiness Scale score decreased by 3.9 points from baseline to discharge. Patients with three or more visits required more follow-up time to achieve the same clinical improvement as those with only two visits. Continuous positive airway pressure adherence was comparable to previous studies of physician-led care and improved with ongoing alternative care provider follow-up. The current results suggest that clinical care by alternative care providers leads to continued improvements in sleepiness in patients with obstructive sleep apnea who are treated with continuous positive airway pressure, and that a minority of patients require longer follow-up to achieve a satisfactory clinical response to therapy.
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".