MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2959442417 · doi:10.1016/s2213-2600(19)30198-5

Estimation of the global prevalence and burden of obstructive sleep apnoea: a literature-based analysis

2019· review· en· W2959442417 on OpenAlexaff
Adam Benjafield, Najib Ayas, Peter R. Eastwood, Raphaël Heinzer, Msm Ip, Mary J. Morrell, Carlos M. Nuñez, Sanjay R. Patel, Thomas Penzel, Jean‐Louis Pépin, Paul E. Peppard, Sanjeev Sinha, Sérgio Tufik, Kate Valentine, Atul Malhotra

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Respiratory Medicine · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersPharmaceuticals BayerNational Health and Medical Research CouncilFondation LeenaardsSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungGlaxoSmithKlineAgence Nationale de la RechercheAmerican Sleep Medicine FoundationPhilipsNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteAmerican Thoracic SocietyResMedResMed FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMedicinePopulationSleep medicineSleep (system call)MEDLINESleep studyPolysomnographyPediatricsSleep disorderInternal medicineInsomniaEnvironmental healthPsychiatryApnea

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is a scarcity of published data on the global prevalence of obstructive sleep apnoea, a disorder associated with major neurocognitive and cardiovascular sequelae. We used publicly available data and contacted key opinion leaders to estimate the global prevalence of obstructive sleep apnoea. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase to identify published studies reporting the prevalence of obstructive sleep apnoea based on objective testing methods. A conversion algorithm was created for studies that did not use the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) 2012 scoring criteria to identify obstructive sleep apnoea, allowing determination of an equivalent apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI) for publications that used different criteria. The presence of symptoms was not specifically analysed because of scarce information about symptoms in the reference studies and population data. Prevalence estimates for obstructive sleep apnoea across studies using different diagnostic criteria were standardised with a newly developed algorithm. Countries without obstructive sleep apnoea prevalence data were matched to a similar country with available prevalence data; population similarity was based on the population body-mass index, race, and geographical proximity. The primary outcome was prevalence of obstructive sleep apnoea based on AASM 2012 diagnostic criteria in individuals aged 30-69 years (as this age group generally had available data in the published studies and related to information from the UN for all countries). FINDINGS: Reliable prevalence data for obstructive sleep apnoea were available for 16 countries, from 17 studies. Using AASM 2012 diagnostic criteria and AHI threshold values of five or more events per h and 15 or more events per h, we estimated that 936 million (95% CI 903-970) adults aged 30-69 years (men and women) have mild to severe obstructive sleep apnoea and 425 million (399-450) adults aged 30-69 years have moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnoea globally. The number of affected individuals was highest in China, followed by the USA, Brazil, and India. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the first study to report global prevalence of obstructive sleep apnoea; with almost 1 billion people affected, and with prevalence exceeding 50% in some countries, effective diagnostic and treatment strategies are needed to minimise the negative health impacts and to maximise cost-effectiveness. FUNDING: ResMed.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.011
Bibliometrics0.1110.065
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4,040
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Respiratory MedicineSame topicObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchFrench-language works237,207