MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006847952 · doi:10.1080/15402000701190614

The Effect of One Versus Two Nights of In-Laboratory Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Titration on Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Compliance

2007· article· en· W2006847952 on OpenAlex
Julia L. Kaplan, Sharon A. Chung, Terence Fargher, Colin M. Shapiro

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Sleep Medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContinuous positive airway pressureCompliance (psychology)TitrationAirwayAnesthesiaMedicineChemistryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To investigate continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) compliance after one versus two nights of CPAP titration. METHOD: A chart review and a telephone questionnaire interview were conducted in 110 sleep apnea patients who received one or two nights of CPAP titration. Of these patients, 78 followed through with phone interview. RESULTS: There was no difference in CPAP compliance between those who had one or two nights of CPAP titration. The titration pressures on the first and second nights were not significantly different. But there was significant improvement in sleep efficiency from the first to the second diagnostic night. CONCLUSION: One versus two nights of CPAP titration did not affect CPAP compliance, but sleep efficiency improved on the second diagnostic night and an extra titration study may be necessary for some patients, especially those with only one diagnostic night.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.323 · 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