Sleep disorder symptoms are common and unspoken in Canadian general practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Primary care patients were surveyed for what sleep disorder symptoms they discussed with their physicians. Their responses were compared with those of new Sleep clinic patients. The goal was to discover what symptom presentation leads to a successful referral to a sleep clinic. METHODS: We recruited two samples: 191 older Primary care patients and 138 Sleep clinic patients. Participants completed the Sleep Symptom Checklist (SSC). This consists of 21 symptoms in four domains: insomnia, sleep disorder, daytime symptoms and psychological distress. All respondents indicated which symptoms had been discussed with their physician in the past year. Primary care subjects were designated as Decliners (completed SSC, refused further evaluation), Dropouts [completed some evaluation steps, but not polysomnography (PSG)] and Completers (completed PSG). RESULTS: Primary care participants frequently had symptoms but relatively few had discussed them with their doctor. Sleep clinic participants discussed significantly more symptoms with their referring physician than did Primary care Dropouts or Decliners in all categories except psychological distress. Primary care Completers, 88.5% of whom were ultimately diagnosed with sleep apnoea/hypopnoea syndrome and/or periodic limb movement disorder, also discussed their sleep disorder symptoms less frequently than did Sleep clinic patients but tended to give more prominence to symptoms of insomnia and impaired daytime function. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that Primary care patients often have symptoms they do not discuss, even when a primary sleep disorder exists. The brief SSC checklist, developed in our laboratory, has potential to improve the referral rates of older primary care patients who have sleep disorder.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".