Pulse oximetry in paediatric obstructive sleep apnoea: is it used appropriately?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the use of pulse oximetry testing in children with suspected obstructive sleep apnoea in a hospital setting. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent pulse oximetry testing between April 2013 and October 2013 was performed. Primary outcome measures included positive pulse oximetry results, defined as a McGill oximetry score of 2-4. RESULTS: Thirty-seven test results were usable for analysis: from 21 pre- and 16 post-operative tests. Only four patients had positive test results. There was a significant difference between pre- and post-operative quality of life outcome scores in the surgical group (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Pre-operative pulse oximetry should be used as a guide to help triage patients who require specialist paediatric services, such as a paediatric intensive care unit. The use of pulse oximetry, particularly in the post-operative setting, is unlikely to change patient management and can incur unnecessary financial costs to UK National Health Service Hospital Trusts.
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 | 0.004 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".