0600 Automated Oximetric Versus Standard Sleep Polygraphy Scoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Agreement between automated standard respiratory event scoring and a novel, validated, and patented oximetry-based algorithm was assessed. Methods The standard apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) was derived by adding apneas (flow drop >= 90% for 10 to 30 s) and hypopneas (flow drop >= 30% for 10 to 60 s with oxygen saturation (SpO2) dropping >=3%). The novel oxygen index (ODI4) was derived by scoring events where SpO2 dropped in each of three successive samples and cumulatively by >= 4%. Agreement was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis Results AHI versus ODI4 and Bland-Altman plots showed a high prevalence of AHI > ODI4 when AHI was< 30/h. Negative difference outliers were frequent when mean index difference was > 30/h. There was a bias of 2.83/h in the difference between AHI and ODI4 with upper and lower confidence limits of 22.0/h and -16.3/h. Conclusion Standard respiratory event scoring overestimates respiratory disturbance compared to a novel oximetric index. Standard automated scoring frequently over scores events when basal flow amplitude is low. Support None.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".