Screening for Obstructive Sleep Apnea in an Atrial Fibrillation Population: What’s the Best Test?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: ex) is a new OSA questionnaire that excludes these parameters. Acoustic pharyngometry (AP) is a potential novel screening technique that measures pharyngeal cross-sectional area, which is reduced in patients with OSA. METHODS: ender), and AP with home sleep apnea testing (HSAT) in consecutive patients with nonvalvular AF. RESULTS: Of 188 participants, 86% had OSA and 49% had moderate or severe OSA. Mean Epworth Sleepiness Scale scores were low; 5.9 (SD, 3.9), indicating that most participants were not sleepy. Receiver operating characteristic curves for comparisons of screening tests with HSAT showed suboptimal accuracy. For moderate plus severe and severe only groups respectively, the area under the curve was 0.50 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42-0.58) and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.34-0.52) for AP, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.58-0.73) and 0.63 (95% CI, 0.52-0.74) for the STOP-BANG questionnaire, and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.60-0.75) and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.59-0.80) for the NoSAS. CONCLUSIONS: AP and NoSAS are not sufficiently accurate for screening AF patients for OSA. Because of the high rates of OSA in this cohort, the potential benefits of OSA treatment, and the suboptimal accuracy of current screening questionnaires, cardiologists should consider HSAT for AF patients.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it