Sleep Laboratory Test Referrals in Canada: Sleep Apnea Rapid Response Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An estimated 5.4 million Canadian adults have been diagnosed with sleep apnea or are at high risk of experiencing obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). There are no recent Canadian data regarding access to and predictors of referral for diagnostic testing in these populations. METHODS: The Sleep Apnea Rapid Response survey sampled 8647 Canadian adults and captured information about risk, testing, diagnosis and treatment of sleep apnea. Predictors of sleep laboratory test referrals were assessed using log-linked binomial regression modelling. Information regarding sleep testing facilities was updated at the provincial and regional levels. RESULTS: Approximately 76.8% (95% CI 70.1% to 83.6%) of adult Canadians with sleep apnea and 5.1% (95% CI 3.4% to 6.7%) of those at high risk for OSA reported being referred to a sleep laboratory. Significant predictors of sleep laboratory referral in the general population were male sex, middle age, overweight or obese, a chronic condition, having a regular medical doctor and reporting symptoms of sleep apnea. Region of residence was also a predictor of reported sleep laboratory referral, with individuals from Ontario being more likely to report being referred to a sleep laboratory versus individuals from other regions. CONCLUSION: Individuals reporting risk factors and symptoms associated with OSA were more likely to report a sleep laboratory testing referral compared with those without risk factors or symptoms. However, Canada's diagnostic sleep laboratory testing capacity varies across regions and is believed to be inadequate given the number of individuals at high risk for OSA who did not report testing referral.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".