MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2299764915 · doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-207994

Obstructive sleep apnoea and frequency of occupational injury

2016· letter· en· W2299764915 on OpenAlexafffund
A. J. Hirsch Allen, Julie E. Park, Patrick Daniele, John A. Fleetham, C. Frank Ryan, Najib Ayas

Bibliographic record

VenueThorax · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia HospitalProvidence Health Care Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteBritish Columbia Lung Association
KeywordsMedicineConfoundingPolysomnographyInternal medicinePhysical therapyPoison controlVigilance (psychology)PediatricsEmergency medicineApnea

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We sought to determine whether patients with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) are at increased risk of occupational injury (OI). Patients referred to the University of British Columbia Hospital Sleep Laboratory for suspected OSA (May 2003 to July 2011 were recruited and rates and types of validated OI (that caused at least 1 day of disability) in the 5 years prior to polysomnography were calculated. In a sample of 1236, patients with OSA were twice as likely (OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.50, p=0.03) to suffer at least one OI compared with patients without OSA. This association was attenuated (OR=1.76, CI 0.86 to 3.59, p=0.12) after controlling for confounders. In a secondary analysis, patients with OSA were almost three times more likely (OR=2.88, CI 1.02 to 8.08, p=0.05) to suffer from an injury more likely related to reduced vigilance (eg, a fall or commercial motor vehicle crash) when compared with patients without OSA, and this again was attenuated after controlling for confounders (OR=2.42, CI 0.085 to 6.93, p=0.10).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.345
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations26
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThoraxSame topicObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchFrench-language works237,207