Quality and relevance of evidence in support of guideline recommendations for sleep laboratory investigations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: As part of a review of guidelines for sleep laboratories, this study summarizes the quality and relevance of evidence cited in support of recommendations on investigations for individuals with sleep disorders. METHODS: Quality of evidence in support of each recommendation was rated as A (from well-conducted, prospective controlled studies), B (from controlled studies and case series, with minor shortcomings), or C (from case series or case series plus controlled studies with substantial limitations). Relevance of the cited evidence was also rated from A to C, in decreasing order of merit. RESULTS: Of eighty-one recommendations from thirty-seven guidelines, forty-six were supported by evidence from primary studies. Six recommendations were supported by category A evidence, fifteen by category B, and twenty-five recommendations by category C. The cited evidence was highly relevant to eighteen recommendations, of some relevance for twenty-two and of little or no relevance to six. Four recommendations were informed by an absence of available evidence. For the other thirty-one, no evidence was provided in support. CONCLUSIONS: The approach used provided a concise overview of recommendations and supporting evidence for decision-makers. Guidelines on the use of sleep laboratory investigations contain much detailed information, but evidence supporting several recommendations is of limited quality and relevance. Furthermore, good-quality studies of many sleep laboratory applications are needed to assist both health policy formulation and clinical practice.
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 | 0.091 | 0.413 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".