Comparison of Polysomnographic and Portable Home Monitoring Assessments of Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Saskatchewan Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare a commercially available, level III in-home diagnostic sleep test (Embletta, Embletta USA) and in-laboratory polysomnography (PSG) in women with suspected obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). METHODS: Consecutive women scheduled for routine PSG testing for evaluation of clinically suspected OSA and who met inclusion⁄exclusion criteria, were invited to participate. An in-home Embletta portable monitor test was performed one week before or after diagnostic PSG. RESULTS: Forty-seven of 96 women who met the inclusion⁄exclusion criteria agreed to participate. The mean (± SD) age of the patients was 52.0 ± 11.0 years, with a mean body mass index of 34.86 ± 9.04 kg⁄m2, and 66% (31 of 47) of patients were at high risk for OSA according to the Berlin score. Paired analysis of the overall population revealed no significant difference in mean apnea⁄hypopnea index (AHI) between the two diagnostic methods (P = 0.475). At an AHI of ≥ 5, the Embletta test was highly sensitive (90.6%) in determining abnormal versus normal OSA, with a positive predictive value of 82.7%. However, a higher Embletta AHI threshold of ≥ 10 may be more useful, with a higher level of agreement (kappa coefficient) with PSG testing and a positive predictive value of 92.3%. The in-home study was less useful at distinguishing severe from nonsevere OSA, yielding a sensitivity of 50%. CONCLUSIONS: In women believed to be at high-risk for OSA, Embletta in-home sleep testing is useful for the detection of sleep disordered breathing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".