MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Utility of Acoustic Pharyngometry for the Diagnosis of Obstructive Sleep Apnea

2016· article· en· W2516753121 on OpenAlexaff
Tetyana Kendzerska, Monica Grewal, Clodagh M. Ryan

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the American Thoracic Society · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of CanadaUniversity of TorontoToronto General HospitalUniversity Health NetworkInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSunnybrook Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeObstructive sleep apneaBody mass indexOdds ratioPolysomnographyCohortConfidence intervalLogistic regressionReceiver operating characteristicSleep apneaAmbulatoryApnea–hypopnea indexApneaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale Owing to resource limitations, the testing of patients for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is often delayed. There is a need to accurately triage and expedite testing in those with a high pretest probability of OSA. Acoustic pharyngometry is a simple, noninvasive technique used to assess the upper airway cross-sectional area (UA-XSA), which is known to be reduced in those with OSA. Objectives To determine the discriminative ability and predictive value of UA-XSA measurements by acoustic pharyngometry for OSA. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study with a clinical cohort of consecutive adults with suspected OSA who had undergone both polysomnography and acoustic pharyngometry. OSA was defined as an apnea–hypopnea index greater than or equal to 5. Multivariable logistic regression analyses and receiver operating characteristic curves were used. Measurements and Main Results: The cohort included 576 subjects, 87% of whom had OSA and 64% of whom were men. The subjects’ median body mass index (BMI) was 30.3 kg/m2, and their median age was 57 years. The median UA-XSA at FRC when sitting was significantly smaller in those with OSA compared with those without OSA (3.3 cm2 [interquartile range, 2.7–3.8] vs. 3.7 cm2 [interquartile range, of 2.9–4.2]). When the analysis was controlled for age, sex, BMI, and comorbidities, the odds of OSA increased for every 1-cm2 decrease in the mean UA-XSA FRC when sitting (odds ratio, 1.62; 95% confidence interval, 1.23–2.13). The mean UA-XSA provided fair discrimination for OSA (area under the curve, 0.60). A cutoff value of 3.75 cm2, the point with the best sum of sensitivity and specificity, had sensitivity of 73% and specificity of 46%. The magnitude of the incremental discriminative value of UA-XSA over clinical variables (age, sex, BMI, and comorbidities) was small and nonsignificant (P = 0.5). Conclusions The mean UA-XSA at FRC when sitting or supine provided no further significant advantage over clinical variables for the discernment of OSA.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the American Thoracic SocietySame topicObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchFrench-language works237,207