564 Patient Charactarestics With Normal to Mild Apnea Hypopnea Index Undergoing Polysomnography to Diagnose Obstructive Sleep Apnea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Polysomnography (PSG) testing is expensive and not easily accessible. Waiting time for a routine PSG at the Alberta Children’s Hospital (ACH) can be up to a year. Majority of PSG studies performed are for diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). A previous quality improvement (QI) project conducted at the ACH showed that two-thirds of children who had undergone initial PSG testing had an apnea hypopnea index (AHI) in the normal or mild range. Given our limited resources, better characterization of patient referral characteristics and process factors as documented on the PSG requisition will inform our triage process, decrease wait time, improve resource allocation and information provided to referral sources. Methods Retrospective review of PSG’s performed for the initial diagnosis of OSA was completed between January 2018 and March 2020 at the ACH. Patient referral characteristics (age, sex, growth parameters, medical diagnosis, indication for PSG, previous airway surgery), process factors (source of referral, PSG referral and completion date, triage status) and AHI were recorded. Patients were divided into two groups (group A: normal and mild; group B: moderate and severe) based on AHI. Data obtained from the groupings were compared and analyzed descriptively. PSG triage to completion time was also calculated for each group. Results A total of 798 initial PSG studies were completed between January 2018 and March 2020. Of the PSG’s reviewed 64.8% were in group A and 35.2% were in group B. Common medical diagnoses in group A included ADHD, Asthma and Autism, whereas group B had T21 and Enuresis. History of previous airway surgery did not differ between groups. Conclusion Further clarification of the patient’s underlying medical diagnosis (referral characteristic) may help inform our triage process. The implication of previous airway surgery (process factor) on AHI severity is unclear at this point. More data is actively being collected to further interrogate these preliminary findings. Support (if any):
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".