MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098933452 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.130952

Diagnostic accuracy of level 3 portable sleep tests versus level 1 polysomnography for sleep-disordered breathing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2013· review· en· W2098933452 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Mohamed El Shayeb, Leigh-Ann Topfer, Tania Stafinski, Lawrence Pawluk, Devidas Menon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsMedicinePolysomnographyObstructive sleep apneaMeta-analysisReceiver operating characteristicSleep apneaPopulationApnea–hypopnea indexSleep studyDiagnostic accuracyHypopneaLogistic regressionPhysical therapyApneaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Greater awareness of sleep-disordered breathing and rising obesity rates have fueled demand for sleep studies. Sleep testing using level 3 portable devices may expedite diagnosis and reduce the costs associated with level 1 in-laboratory polysomnography. We sought to assess the diagnostic accuracy of level 3 testing compared with level 1 testing and to identify the appropriate patient population for each test. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies of level 3 versus level 1 sleep tests in adults with suspected sleep-disordered breathing. We searched 3 research databases and grey literature sources for studies that reported on diagnostic accuracy parameters or disease management after diagnosis. Two reviewers screened the search results, selected potentially relevant studies and extracted data. We used a bivariate mixed-effects binary regression model to estimate summary diagnostic accuracy parameters. RESULTS: We included 59 studies involving a total of 5026 evaluable patients (mostly patients suspected of having obstructive sleep apnea). Of these, 19 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The estimated area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was high, ranging between 0.85 and 0.99 across different levels of disease severity. Summary sensitivity ranged between 0.79 and 0.97, and summary specificity ranged between 0.60 and 0.93 across different apnea-hypopnea cut-offs. We saw no significant difference in the clinical management parameters between patients who underwent either test to receive their diagnosis. INTERPRETATION: Level 3 portable devices showed good diagnostic performance compared with level 1 sleep tests in adult patients with a high pretest probability of moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea and no unstable comorbidities. For patients suspected of having other types of sleep-disordered breathing or sleep disorders not related to breathing, level 1 testing remains the reference standard.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.079
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.079
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.045
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.131
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations228
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchFrench-language works237,207