Validation of the Berlin Questionnaire and American Society of Anesthesiologists Checklist as Screening Tools for Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Surgical Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Because of the high prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and its adverse impact on perioperative outcome, a practical screening tool for surgical patients is required. This study was conducted to validate the Berlin questionnaire and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) checklist in surgical patients and to compare them with the STOP questionnaire. METHODS: After hospital ethics approval, preoperative patients aged 18 yr or older and without previously diagnosed OSA were recruited. The scores from the Berlin questionnaire, ASA checklist, and STOP questionnaire were evaluated versus the apnea-hypopnea index from in-laboratory polysomnography. The perioperative data were collected through chart review. RESULTS: Of 2,467 screened patients, 33, 27, and 28% were respectively classified as being at high risk of OSA by the Berlin questionnaire, ASA checklist, and STOP questionnaire. The performance of the screening tools was evaluated in 177 patients who underwent polysomnography. The sensitivities of the Berlin questionnaire, ASA checklist, and STOP questionnaire were 68.9-87.2, 72.1-87.2, and 65.6-79.5% at different apnea-hypopnea index cutoffs. There was no significant difference between the three screening tools in the predictive parameters. The patients with an apnea-hypopnea index greater than 5 and the patients identified as being at high risk of OSA by the STOP questionnaire or ASA checklist had a significantly increased incidence of postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to the STOP questionnaire, the Berlin questionnaire and ASA checklist demonstrated a moderately high level of sensitivity for OSA screening. The STOP questionnaire and the ASA checklist were able to identify the patients who were likely to develop postoperative complications.
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 | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".