MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799744680 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsy061.716

0717 Comparaison Of Self-reported Objectives Sleep Measures In Elderly Population With Sleep Apnea

2018· article· en· W2799744680 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tara Gomes, Nelly Huynh, Elham Emami

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPittsburgh Sleep Quality IndexPolysomnographyEpworth Sleepiness ScaleMedicineSleep apneaPhysical therapySleep (system call)PopulationObstructive sleep apneaApneaApnea–hypopnea indexPsychologyAnesthesiaInsomniaSleep qualityPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A deterioration in sleep quality with age is common in the elderly. A poor sleep quality is correlated with increased sleep apnea. A disparity or potential relationship may arise between sleep perception in people with fragmented sleep and those reported objectively. However, this has not yet been evaluated in this population. The objective of this study is to evaluate the association between self-reported and objective measures of sleep in an elderly population suffering from sleep apnea. Participants was recruited in the greater Montreal area and a written informed consent was obtained according participant eligibility criteria’s, clinical examination and study questionnaires during the first visit. A sleep recording is then made at home for one night by a portable polysomnography in order to evaluate their sleep quality and determine the presence of sleep apnea. The self-reported measures will be assessed by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index Questionnaire (PSQI score, score 0–21), the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (score 0–24), the Berlin sleep evaluation (score 0–3) and the Karolinska drowsiness ladder (score 1–9). Objective measures was collected by portable polysomnography and includes the Apnea-Hypopnea index (AHI), Oxygen Desaturation index (ODI) and the sleep efficiency. A significant correlation is demonstrated between a high AHI and ODI values with a high risk Berlin score. The sensitivity and specificity of the Berlin score for AHI were 56% and 72%, respectively, whereas the ODI were 50% and 71% respectively. As for the sleep efficiency, it associates significantly with a lower scale of Karolinska having a sensitivity and specificity of 58% and 67% respectively. The subjective-objective measures activity is correlated with sleep apnea severity and level of drowsiness in aging population and further inquiries is needed to fully comprehend the nature of perception of sleep and objective measures. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Academic scholarship (University of Montreal, Dentistry Faculty).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchFrench-language works237,207