Oxygen saturation resolution influences regularity measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The measurement of regularity in the oxygen saturation (SpO(2)) signal has been suggested for use in identifying subjects with sleep disordered breathing (SDB). Previous work has shown that children with SDB have lower SpO(2) regularity than subjects without SDB (NonSDB). Regularity was measured using non-linear methods like approximate entropy (ApEn), sample entropy (SamEn) and Lempel-Ziv (LZ) complexity. Different manufacturer's pulse oximeters provide SpO(2) at various resolutions and the effect of this resolution difference on SpO(2) regularity, has not been studied. To investigate this effect, we used the SpO(2) signal of children with and without SDB, recorded from the Phone Oximeter (0.1% resolution) and the same SpO(2) signal rounded to the nearest integer (artificial 1% resolution). To further validate the effect of rounding, we also used the SpO(2) signal (1% resolution) recorded simultaneously from polysomnography (PSG), as a control signal. We estimated SpO(2) regularity by computing the ApEn, SamEn and LZ complexity, using a 5-min sliding window and showed that different resolutions provided significantly different results. The regularity calculated using 0.1% SpO(2) resolution provided no significant differences between SDB and NonSDB. However, the artificial 1% resolution SpO(2) provided significant differences between SDB and NonSDB, showing a more random SpO(2) pattern (lower SpO(2) regularity) in SDB children, as suggested in the past. Similar results were obtained with the SpO(2) recorded from PSG (1% resolution), which further validated that this SpO(2) regularity change was due to the rounding effect. Therefore, the SpO(2) resolution has a great influence in regularity measurements like ApEn, SamEn and LZ complexity that should be considered when studying the SpO(2) pattern in children with SDB.
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 | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".