MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799557507 · doi:10.1111/jsr.12702

The <scp>STOP</scp>‐<scp>BANG</scp> questionnaire shows an insufficient specificity for detecting obstructive sleep apnea in patients with atrial fibrillation

2018· article· en· W2799557507 on OpenAlex
Asmaa M. Abumuamar, Paul Dorian, David Newman, Colin M. Shapiro

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sleep Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Michael's HospitalToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersMetro South Health
KeywordsMedicineObstructive sleep apneaAtrial fibrillationAmbulatoryBody mass indexApneaSleep apneaCardiologyInternal medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Obstructive sleep apnea ( OSA ) is a sleep disorder associated with significant cardiovascular comorbidities, including cardiac arrhythmia. The STOP ‐ BANG questionnaire is an eight‐item self‐report questionnaire designed to screen patients for OSA and was validated in preoperative surgical patients. The STOP items are snoring, daytime tiredness, observed apneas and high blood pressure. The BANG items are body mass index &gt;35 kg/m 2 , age &gt;50 years, neck circumference &gt;40 cm and male gender. We aimed to determine the screening properties of the STOP ‐ BANG questionnaire in patients with arrhythmia. Non‐selected consecutive patients were recruited from arrhythmia clinics. Patients with previously diagnosed and/or treated OSA were excluded. The STOP ‐ BANG questionnaire was self‐administered. Patients underwent two consecutive nights of home sleep recording. OSA was defined as an apnea‐hypopnea index score of ≥5/hr of sleep. The screening properties of the STOP ‐ BANG questionnaire were analysed compared with the objective diagnosis of OSA by ambulatory testing. Ninety‐five patients were included in the final analysis. Eighty‐five percent were found to have OSA . The STOP ‐ BANG score of ≥3 was 89% sensitive and 36% specific for diagnosis of OSA . The STOP ‐ BANG questionnaire had fair performance, as indicated by an area under the curve of 0.74 ( p = .004). In conclusion, the STOP ‐ BANG questionnaire is sensitive; however, it has a low specificity with a high false positive rate. Given that a large number of atrial fibrillation patients need testing for OSA , we recommend the use of a level II sleep study regardless of the results of the screening questionnaire. This approach accurately identifies OSA and may limit the cost of unnecessary level‐I sleep studies.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.300 · 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