[Comparative evaluation of two health-related quality of life questionnaires in patients with sleep apnea].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Symptoms and complications of the obstructive sleep apnea (SAS) lead to a significant impairment of the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of the affected individuals. Most HRQOL questionnaires have been published in English. Formal process of evaluation has to precede the introduction of a new language version of a HRQOL questionnaire. We conducted a comparative evaluation of the Polish versions of two HRQOL questionnaires: The Calgary Sleep Apnea Quality of Life Questionnaire (SAQLI) and The Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ). We examined the reliability, validity, stability and responsiveness of both questionnaires. Cronbach's alpha coefficient amounted to 0.94 for both questionnaires, which confirmed their reliability. Scores of both questionnaires highly correlated with measures of daily sleepiness, general health and SF-36 questionnaire scores. Both SAQLI and FOSQ gave stable results, but SAQLI was found to be more sensitive than FOSQ. The Polish version of FOSQ was proved to be a useful tool in cross-sectional assessment of HRQOL in patients with SAS. Stability and responsiveness of the Polish version of SAQLI and normal distribution of its scores make this questionnaire a preferable instrument in repeated assessments of HRQOL in the same group of 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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".