Validation of the STOP-Bang questionnaire as a screening tool for obstructive sleep apnoea in patients with cardiovascular risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis
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
INTRODUCTION: Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is highly prevalent in patients with cardiovascular risk factors and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. This review presents the predictive parameters of the STOP-Bang questionnaire as a screening tool for OSA in this population. METHODS: A search of databases was performed. The inclusion criteria were: (1) use of the STOP-Bang questionnaire to screen for OSA in adults (>18 years) with cardiovascular risk factors; (2) polysomnography or home sleep apnoea testing performed as a reference standard; (3) OSA defined by either Apnoea-Hypopnoea Index (AHI) or Respiratory Disturbance Index; and (4) data on predictive parameters of the STOP-Bang questionnaire. A random-effects model was used to obtain pooled predictive parameters of the STOP-Bang questionnaire. RESULTS: , and 64% were male. The STOP-Bang questionnaire has a sensitivity of 89.1%, 90.7% and 93.9% to screen for all (AHI ≥5), moderate-to-severe (AHI ≥15) and severe (AHI≥30) OSA, respectively. The specificity was 32.3%, 22.5% and 18.3% and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.86, 0.65 and 0.52 for all, moderate-to-severe and severe OSA, respectively. CONCLUSION: The STOP-Bang questionnaire is an effective tool to screen for OSA (AHI≥5) with AUC of 0.86 in patients with cardiovascular risk factors.
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 | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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