Night‐to‐night consistency of at‐home nocturnal pulse oximetry testing for obstructive sleep apnea in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: At-home nocturnal pulse oximetry has a high positive predictive value (PPV) for polysomnographically-diagnosed obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) but no studies have been published testing the night-to-night consistency of at-home nocturnal pulse oximetry for the evaluation of suspected OSA in children. We therefore determined the night-to-night consistency of nocturnal pulse oximetry as a diagnostic test for OSA in children. METHODS: We prospectively studied 148 children (96 male) aged 4.9 ± 2.4 (1.2-11.8) years, referred for suspected OSA. To evaluate night-to-night consistency, we compared an oximetry analysis method, the McGill Oximetry Score (MOS), from two consecutive at-home nocturnal pulse oximetry recordings. RESULTS: Pulse oximetry metrics were similar on the two nights. The MOS on the two nights showed excellent night-to-night consistency when analyzed as positive for OSA versus inconclusive, 143/148 (Spearman's correlation coefficient = 0.90). A more detailed analysis using four categories (MOS 1, 2, 3, and 4) of OSA severity showed very good night-to-night agreement, 133/148 (Spearman's correlation coefficient = 0.91). Variability was increased in children younger than 4 years of age compared to older children. CONCLUSIONS: Night-to-night consistency of nocturnal pulse oximetry as a diagnostic test for OSA showed excellent agreement. Night-to-night consistency of pulse oximetry, as analyzed by the MOS, for diagnosis and severity evaluation further validates this abbreviated testing method for pediatric OSA. Polysomnography (PSG) is required to rule in or rule out OSA in children if a single night oximetry testing is inconclusive.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".