Noninvasive Positive Airway Pressure Treatment in Children Less Than 12 Months of Age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study Objectives. We identified the associated conditions of patients less than 12 months of age who were referred for polysomnogram (PSG) studies. We collated PSG findings and physician interpretation. We determined the correlation between the recommended treatment by the PSG interpreting physician and actual prescribed treatment by the referring or subjects' physician. We determined adherence with noninvasive positive airway pressure (PAP) treatment. Methods. This was a retrospective cohort study. Participants included children less than 12 months of age referred for PSG studies between 2007 and 2012. Results. 92 patients under the age of 12 months were included in the study analysis. Mean (standard deviation, SD) age in days at time of the PSG study was 208.5 (101.2). 35 (38%) patients had a diagnosis of Trisomy 21. Seven (8%) patients had no prior diagnosis. Median (Q1, Q3) apnea hypopnea index (AHI) was 22.5 (11.3-37.0). Agreement between the PSG interpreting physician's recommendation and actual prescribed treatment by the referring or subjects' physician was 85.9% [95% CI 77.1-91.6]. Mean (SD) percentage days with PAP therapy usage more than 4 hours was 25.2% (32). Conclusions. In our experience, despite consistent physician messaging to families, adherence with noninvasive PAP treatment is low.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".