Sleep‐disordered breathing in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: A preliminary study of the role of portable monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is often associated with sleep disordered breathing (SDB), it is not standard clinical practice to routinely test this population for SDB, and the optimal timing and methodology for such testing has not been established. Our objectives were: 1) to examine the concordance between laboratory polysomnography (PSG) and two portable monitoring systems, and 2) to identify clinical factors associated with the onset of SDB. We performed a cross-sectional pilot study of patients with DMD who were 6 years of age or older, and who were registered at the Alberta Children's and Calgary General Hospitals. Patient symptom and functional rating scores were calculated, and pulmonary function tests, awake oxygen saturation, and capillary blood gases were obtained. PSG was performed according to standard methods, and results were compared with Snoresat(R) (Saga Tech Electronics, Inc.) and EdenTec(R) (Nellcor Puritan Bennett) portable home monitors. Eleven boys were studied. Ten of 11 subjects had normal awake oxygen saturation and capillary blood gases. Median forced vital capacity (FVC) was 70% of predicted values (15-104%). PSG identified 3 boys with severe hypoventilation occurring throughout REM sleep. Reported symptom severity did not predict the patients with significant SDB. All 3 boys with SDB had a severe functional disability and severely reduced FVCs. Portable monitoring in the home identified all patients with abnormal PSG. One additional patient was falsely identified by the EdenTec(R) monitor. We conclude that initial results using Snoresat(R) or EdenTec(R) monitoring equipment for the identification of SDB are promising, but further validation of portable home monitoring is required in this group of patients.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".