[A simplified Chinese version of the Quebec sleep questionnaire was evaluated for reliability and validity].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a simplified Chinese version of the 32-item Quebec sleep questionnaire (QSQ) and to examine the reliability and validity. METHODS: A cross-sectional sample of 141 patients [22 simple snorers and 119 obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS)] and a longitudinal sample of 55 patients [35 in uvulopalatopharyngoplasty (UPPP) group and 20 in control group] completed the simplified Chinese version of QSQ for assessment of its feasibility, reliability, validity and responsiveness. RESULTS: QSQ had good feasibility. All internal consistency coefficients exceeded 0.65. Intraclass correlation coefficients of five domains for test-retest reliability ranged from 0.82 - 0.91. There were significant differences in four domains (daytime sleepiness, diurnal symptoms, nocturnal symptoms and social interactions) among patients with different severity of apnea hypopnea index (AHI) and lowest saturation of arterial oxygen (LSaO2, P < 0.01 or < 0.05). Correlations between QSQ scores and five domains and Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS) were statistically significant (P < 0.01). Correlations between QSQ scores and three domains (daytime sleepiness, nocturnal symptoms and social interactions) and polysomnography (PSG) indices (AHI and LSaO2) were statistically significant (P < 0.05). There were significant differences in scores of five domains of patients between at baseline and after UPPP. There were significant differences in change scores of five domains between patients who were treated and those who were not. CONCLUSION: The simplified Chinese version of QSQ offers good reliability, validity and responsiveness and can be used as a OSAHS-specific instrument to assess impact of illness and treatment effectiveness in OSAHS patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".