Clinical audit of the Quebec Sleep Questionnaire in a routine sleep apnoea service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: We reviewed 2 years of our obstructive sleep apnoea & hypopnoea syndrome (OSAHS) service. The Quebec Sleep Questionnaire (QSQ) was used as a subjective measure of improvement 1 with CPAP. We aimed to see if QSQ reflected symptomatic improvement in treated patients. Methods: Referrals undertook history & baseline overnight oximetry (Pulsox 300i, Minolta, Japan). If positive for OSAHS, they undertook an auto-titration and, if beneficial, a trial of CPAP. Of 783 patients, only 155 completed QSQ before & after the CPAP trial. QSQ includes 5 areas; Q1. hypersomnolence, Q2. diurnal symptoms, Q3. nocturnal symptoms, Q4. emotions, Q5. social interactions. An increased score indicated improved symptoms. We compared objective & subjective improvements with CPAP. Results: Patients exhibited witnessed apnoeas (68%), snoring (90%), excessive daytime sleepiness (76%) with 56% showing all 3 symptoms. Differences in SpO2 dip rate, Epworth Score (ESS) & QSQ pre- & post-CPAP trial are shown in Table 1. Surprisingly, there was poor correlation between hypersomnolence (Q1) & ESS. Conclusion: QSQ correlates with objective improvements in OSAHS & appears to be a reliable subjective measure of symptom improvement. However, there was poor correlation between ESS & hypersomnolence. 1 Lacasse , et al Thorax 2004; 59: 494-499.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".