MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2411947931 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000001416

Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine Guidelines on Preoperative Screening and Assessment of Adult Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea

2016· review· en· W2411947931 on OpenAlexaff
Frances Chung, Stavros G. Memtsoudis, Satya Krishna Ramachandran, Mahesh Nagappa, Mathias Opperer, Crispiana Cozowicz, Sara Patrawala, David K. Lam, Anjana Kumar, Girish P. Joshi, John A. Fleetham, Najib Ayas, Nancy A. Collop, Anthony G. Doufas, Matthias Eikermann, Marina Englesakis, Bhargavi Gali, Peter C. Gay, Adrían V. Hernández, Roop Kaw, Eric J. Kezirian, Anil K. Malhotra, Babak Mokhlesi, Sairam Parthasarathy, Tracey L. Stierer, Frank Wappler, David R. Hillman, Dennis Auckley

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph's HospitalVictoria HospitalLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern UniversityToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British Columbia
FundersU.S. Department of DefenseNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthResMedPatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
KeywordsMedicineSleep medicineObstructive sleep apneaSleep (system call)AnesthesiaSleep apneaIntensive care medicineSleep disorderPsychiatryInsomnia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine guideline on preoperative screening and assessment of adult patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is to present recommendations based on the available clinical evidence on the topic where possible. As very few well-performed randomized studies in this field of perioperative care are available, most of the recommendations were developed by experts in the field through consensus processes involving utilization of evidence grading to indicate the level of evidence upon which recommendations were based. This guideline may not be appropriate for all clinical situations and all patients. The decision whether to follow these recommendations must be made by a responsible physician on an individual basis. Protocols should be developed by individual institutions taking into account the patients' conditions, extent of interventions and available resources. This practice guideline is not intended to define standards of care or represent absolute requirements for patient care. The adherence to these guidelines cannot in any way guarantee successful outcomes and is rather meant to help individuals and institutions formulate plans to better deal with the challenges posed by perioperative patients with OSA. These recommendations reflect the current state of knowledge and its interpretation by a group of experts in the field at the time of publication. While these guidelines will be periodically updated, new information that becomes available between updates should be taken into account. Deviations in practice from guidelines may be justifiable and such deviations should not be interpreted as a basis for claims of negligence.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations349
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchFrench-language works237,207