Canadian Sleep Society/Canadian Thoracic Society position paper on the use of portable monitoring for the diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea/hypopnea in adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present position paper on the use of portable monitoring (PM) as a diagnostic tool for obstructive sleep apnea⁄hypopnea (OSAH) in adults was based on consensus and expert opinion regarding best practice standards from stakeholders across Canada. These recommendations were prepared to guide appropriate clinical use of this new technology and to ensure that quality assurance standards are adhered to. Clinical guidelines for the use of PM for the diagnosis and management of OSAH as an alternative to in-laboratory polysomnography published by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Portable Monitoring Task Force were used to tailor our recommendations to address the following: indications; methodology including physician involvement, physician and technical staff qualifications, and follow-up requirements; technical considerations; quality assurance; and conflict of interest guidelines. When used appropriately under the supervision of a physician with training in sleep medicine, and in conjunction with a comprehensive sleep evaluation, PM may expedite treatment when there is a high clinical suspicion of OSAH.
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 | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".