MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2408631410 · doi:10.1093/sleep/27.3.536

Polysomnography Performed in the Unattended Home Versus the Attended Laboratory Setting—Sleep Heart Health Study Methodology

2004· article· en· W2408631410 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Conrad Iber, Susan Redline, Adele M. Kaplan Gilpin, Stuart F. Quan, Lin Zhang, Daniel J. Gottlieb, David M. Rapoport, Helaine E. Resnick, Mark Sanders, Philip L. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteUniversity of MinnesotaUniversity of California, DavisCase Western Reserve UniversityYork UniversityJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsPolysomnographyPolysomnogramRespiratory disturbance indexMedicineQuartileBody mass indexPhysical therapySleep StagesSleep medicineSleep disorderInternal medicineApneaConfidence intervalInsomniaPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations196
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchFrench-language works237,207