MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Alternative Care Provider Clinic for Severe Sleep-disordered Breathing

2019· article· en· W2969894042 on OpenAlexafffund
Sachin R. Pendharkar, Willis H. Tsai, Erika Penz, Maria Santana, Ada Ip, Jenny Kelly, W. Ward Flemons, Kristin Fraser, Patrick J. Hanly

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the American Thoracic Society · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of SaskatchewanFoothills Medical Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHealth Research Board
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialSleep disordered breathingIntensive care medicineBreathingMEDLINEPhysical therapyEmergency medicineObstructive sleep apneaInternal medicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale Lack of timely access to diagnosis and treatment of sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) has sparked interest in using nonphysician providers. Previous studies of these alternative care providers (ACPs) excluded patients with more complicated forms of SDB and did not directly explore the impacts of a model incorporating ACPs on healthcare system performance, such as wait times. Objectives To evaluate the use of ACPs in the management of patients with severe SDB from a clinical and system perspective. Methods In this noninferiority study, patients with severe SDB (N = 156) were enrolled from October 2014 to July 2016 and randomized to either sleep physician management or management by ACP with same-day sleep physician review. Severe SDB was defined as one of 1) respiratory event index greater than 30/h, 2) mean nocturnal oxygen saturation less than 85%, and 3) arterial carbon dioxide greater than 45 mm Hg with respiratory event index greater than 15/h. The primary outcome was nightly positive airway pressure adherence at 3 months, using a noninferiority margin of 1 hour. Secondary outcomes included sleepiness, quality of life, patient satisfaction, wait times for diagnosis and treatment initiation, and demand for further testing and clinical assessment. Outcomes were evaluated using modified intention–to-treat and per-protocol analyses. Results Care delivery using ACPs was indeterminate compared with sleep physician care with respect to treatment adherence, because the 95% confidence interval included the noninferiority margin of 1 hour (mean difference, −0.5 [−1.49 to 0.49] h). Patients in the ACP arm reported greater improvements in sleepiness and quality of life; wait times were shorter for initial assessment (28%) and treatment initiation (18%). There was no difference in demand for sleep testing or clinical follow-up. Per-protocol analysis revealed similar results. Conclusions Management of severe SDB using ACPs was indeterminate compared with sleep physician care. The small decrease in adherence in the ACP arm was balanced by benefits in patient-reported outcomes and reduction in wait times. In systems with unacceptably long wait times for SDB diagnosis and treatment, a small decrease in treatment adherence, as was observed in this study, may be an acceptable trade-off to improve access to care for patients with severe SDB. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02191085).

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.369 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations22
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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