Principles of practice parameters for the treatment of sleep disordered breathing in the elderly and frail elderly: the consensus of the International Geriatric Sleep Medicine Task Force
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sleep disordered breathing (SDB) is a leading cause of morbidity worldwide. Its prevalence increases with age. Due to the demographic changes in industrial societies, pulmonologists and sleep physicians are confronted with a rapidly growing number of elderly SDB patients. For many physicians, it remains unclear how current guidelines for SDB management apply to elderly and frail elderly patients. The goal of this consensus statement is to provide guidance based on published evidence for SDB treatment in this specific patient group.Clinicians and researchers with expertise in geriatric sleep medicine representing several countries were invited to participate in a task force. A literature search of PubMed from the past 12 years and a systematic review of evidence of studies deemed relevant was performed.Recommendations for treatment management of elderly and frail elderly SDB patients based on published evidence were formulated via discussion and consensus.In the last 12 years, there have been surprisingly few studies examining treatment of SDB in older adults and even fewer in frail older adults. Studies that have been conducted on the management of SDB in the older patient population were rarely stratified for age. Studies in SDB treatment that did include age stratification mainly focused on middle-aged and younger patient groups. Based on the evidence that is available, this consensus statement highlights the treatment forms that can be recommended for elderly SDB patients and encourages treatment of SDB in this large patient group.
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 | 0.107 | 0.171 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
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".