Screening for Severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome in Hypertensive Outpatients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors attempted to validate a 2-stage strategy to screen for severe obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (s-OSAS) among hypertensive outpatients, with polysomnography (PSG) as the gold standard. Using a prospective design, outpatients with hypertension were recruited from medical outpatient clinics. Interventions included (1) assessment of clinical data; (2) home sleep testing (HST); and (3) 12-channnel, in-laboratory PSG. The authors developed models using clinical or HST data alone (single-stage models) or clinical data in tandem with HST (2-stage models) to predict s-OSAS. For each model, area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs), sensitivity, specificity, negative likelihood ratio, and negative post-test probability (NPTP) were computed. Models were then rank-ordered based on AUC values and NPTP. HST used alone had limited accuracy (AUC=0.727, NPTP=2.9%). However, models that used clinical data in tandem with HST were more accurate in identifying s-OSAS, with lower NPTP: (1) facial morphometrics (AUC=0.816, NPTP=0.6%); (2) neck circumference (AUC=0.803, NPTP=1.7%); and Multivariable Apnea Prediction Score (AUC=0.799, NPTP=1.5%) where sensitivity, specificity, and NPTP were evaluated at optimal thresholds. Therefore, HST combined with clinical data can be useful in identifying s-OSAS in hypertensive outpatients, without incurring greater cost and patient burden associated with in-laboratory PSG. These models were less useful in identifying obstructive sleep apnea syndrome of any severity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".