The Epworth Sleepiness Scale: Self‐Administration Versus Administration by the Physician, and Validation of a French Version
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) measures sleepiness and is used for, among others, patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The questionnaire is usually self-administered, but may be physician administered. The aim was to compare the two methods of administration and to validate a French version. METHODS: Consecutive patients presenting to the sleep clinic at a tertiary care centre completed a self-administered questionnaire containing the ESS. During the medical interview the same day, one of three pulmonologists who specialized in sleep medicine administered the ESS. Correlations with the apnea-hypopnea index and mean sleep latencies were used to assess construct validity, while results of previous self-administered ESS questionnnaires in untreated and recently treated OSA patients were used to test reproducibility and longitudinal construct validity, respectively. RESULTS: In OSA patients, the ESS weakly correlated with the apnea-hypopnea index (r=0.224; P=0.05; n=120) and negatively with mean sleep latency. For untreated patients (test-retest), the mean (+/- SD) average score was unchanged (10.3+/-6.0 to 10.8+/-6.5; P=0.35; n=56) after a median of seven months. With continuous positive airway pressure use, the mean score decreased from 12.4+/-6.8 to 7.6+/-5.0 after 40.2 months (P<0.0001; n=68). For all subjects, the ESS score obtained by the physician was less than that of the self-administered result (9.4+/-5.9 versus 8.5+/-5.8; P<0.0001 [paired t test]; n=188). CONCLUSIONS: In a sleep clinic population, the French version of the ESS performed similarly to the English version. However, the systematic underscoring during physician administration may be important to consider in the research setting if questionnaire administration methods are not consistent.
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 | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".