Use of oximetry to screen for paediatric obstructive sleep apnoea: is one night enough and is 6 hours too much?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Nocturnal pulse oximetry can be used to screen for obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) using the McGill Oximetry Score (MOS). The MOS has a time threshold for a technically adequate study of 6 hours. It has been suggested that one night of oximetry is sufficient to screen for OSA using the MOS. AIMS: (1) To evaluate night-to-night variation of the MOS. (2) To determine the impact of recording three nights of oximetry on the screening yield for OSA. (3) To explore whether useful MOS data are discarded when a threshold of 6 hours of oximetry recording is used. METHODS: A retrospective study of nocturnal pulse oximetry done at home over three consecutive nights in paediatric patients with suspected OSA. Studies were scored (MOS) using thresholds of ≥6 and ≥4 hours of recording. RESULTS: A total of 329 patients were studied. MOS scores over three nights showed only fair to moderate agreement. On the first night 126 patients (38%) screened positive for OSA. When three nights of oximetry were done 195 patients (59%) screened positive on at least one of the nights. There were 48 patients with studies of between 4 and 6 hours duration on one or more nights. If these studies are scored 20 patients (42%) would screen positive for OSA on at least one night based on scoring these studies alone. CONCLUSION: One night of oximetry screening may not be sufficient to screen for OSA. Lowering the time threshold to ≥4 hours may increase the screening capability of nocturnal oximetry.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".