Polysomnography Performed in the Unattended Home Versus the Attended Laboratory Setting—Sleep Heart Health Study Methodology
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare polysomnographic recordings obtained in the home and laboratory setting. DESIGN AND SETTING: Multicenter study comparing unsupervised polysomnography performed in the participant's home with polysomnography supervised at an academic sleep disorders center, using a randomized sequence of study setting. Sleep Heart Health Study (SHHS) standardized polysomnographic recording and scoring techniques were used for both settings. PARTICIPANTS: 64 of 76 non-SHHS participants recruited from 7 SHHS field sites who had both a laboratory and home polysomnogram meeting acceptable quality criteria. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Median sleep duration was greater in the home than in the laboratory (375 vs 318 minutes, respectively, P < .0001) as was sleep efficiency (86% vs 82%, respectively, P < .0024). Very small, but significant increases in percentage of rapid eye movement sleep and decreases in stage 1 sleep were noted in the laboratory. Employing multiple definitions of respiratory disturbance index (RDI), median RDI was similar in both settings (for example, RDI with 3% desaturation: home 12.4, range 0.6-67; laboratory 9.5, range 0.1-93.4, P = .41). Quartile analysis of laboratory RDI showed moderate agreement with home RDI measurements. Based on the mean of laboratory and home RDI and using a cutpoint of 20, there was a biphasic distribution, with the RDI 3% above 20 being more common in the recordings performed in the laboratory than in the home and below 20 being more common in the recordings performed in the home than in the laboratory. These differences could not be attributed to quality of recording, age, sex, or body mass index. CONCLUSIONS: Using SHHS methodology, median RDI was similar in the unattended home and attended laboratory setting with differences of small magnitude in some sleep parameters. Differences in RDI between settings resulted in a rate of disease misclassification that is similar to repeated studies in the same setting.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it