MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2533059353 · doi:10.1109/embc.2016.7591408

Identifying individual sleep apnea/hypoapnea epochs using smartphone-based pulse oximetry

2016· article· en· W2533059353 on OpenAlexafffund
Ainara Garde, Parastoo Dekhordi, J. Mark Ansermino, Guy A. Dumont

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPulse oximetrySleep apneaComputer scienceSleep (system call)ApneaMedicineCardiologyAnesthesiaOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sleep apnea, characterized by frequent pauses in breathing during sleep, poses a serious threat to the healthy growth and development of children. Polysomnography (PSG), the gold standard for sleep apnea diagnosis, is resource intensive and confined to sleep laboratories, thus reducing its accessibility. Pulse oximetry alone, providing blood oxygen saturation (SpO2) and blood volume changes in tissue (PPG), has the potential to identify children with sleep apnea. Thus, we aim to develop a tool for at-home sleep apnea screening that provides a detailed and automated 30 sec epoch-by-epoch sleep apnea analysis. We propose to extract features characterizing pulse oximetry (SpO2 and pulse rate variability [PRV], a surrogate measure of heart rate variability) to create a multivariate logistic regression model that identifies epochs containing apnea/hypoapnea events. Overnight pulse oximetry was collected using a smartphone-based pulse oximeter, simultaneously with standard PSG from 160 children at the British Columbia Children's hospital. The sleep technician manually scored all apnea/hypoapnea events during the PSG study. Based on these scores we labeled each epoch as containing or not containing apnea/hypoapnea. We randomly divided the subjects into training data (40%), used to develop the model applying the LASSO method, and testing data (60%), used to validate the model. The developed model was assessed epoch-by-epoch for each subject. The test dataset had a median area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of 81%; the model provided a median accuracy of 74% sensitivity of 75%, and specificity of 73% when using a risk threshold similar to the percentage of apnea/hypopnea epochs. Thus, providing a detailed epoch-by-epoch analysis with at-home pulse oximetry alone is feasible with accuracy, sensitivity and specificity values above 73% However, the performance might decrease when analyzing subjects with a low number of apnea/hypoapnea events.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations27
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchFrench-language works237,207