MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175965832 · doi:10.2147/clep.s308852

Case-Ascertainment Models to Identify Adults with Obstructive Sleep Apnea Using Health Administrative Data: Internal and External Validation

2021· article· en· W3175965832 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Tetyana Kendzerska, Carl van Walraven, Daniel I. McIsaac, Marcus Povitz, Sunita Mulpuru, Isac Lima, Robert Talarico, Shawn D. Aaron, W. Michael Reisman, Andrea S. Gershon

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Epidemiology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentreLondon Health Sciences CentreUniversity of CalgaryWestern UniversityOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersOttawa Hospital Research InstituteLondon Health Sciences Centre
KeywordsMedicineLogistic regressionCartApnea–hypopnea indexObstructive sleep apneaNomogramPolysomnographyStatisticsInternal medicineApneaMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence on whether obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) can be accurately identified using health administrative data. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We derived and validated a case-ascertainment model to identify OSA using linked provincial health administrative and clinical data from all consecutive adults who underwent a diagnostic sleep study (index date) at two large academic centers (Ontario, Canada) from 2007 to 2017. The presence of moderate/severe OSA (an apnea-hypopnea index≥15) was defined using clinical data. Of 39 candidate health administrative variables considered, 32 were tested. We used classification and regression tree (CART) methods to identify the most parsimonious models via cost-complexity pruning. Identified variables were also used to create parsimonious logistic regression models. All individuals with an estimated probability of 0.5 or greater using the predictive models were classified as having OSA. RESULTS: The case-ascertainment models were derived and validated internally through bootstrapping on 5099 individuals from one center (33% moderate/severe OSA) and validated externally on 13,486 adults from the other (45% moderate/severe OSA). On the external cohort, parsimonious models demonstrated c-statistics of 0.75-0.81, sensitivities of 59-60%, specificities of 87-88%, positive predictive values of 79%, negative predictive values of 73%, positive likelihood ratios (+LRs) of 4.5-5.0 and -LRs of 0.5. Logistic models performed better than CART models (mean integrated calibration indices of 0.02-0.03 and 0.06-0.12, respectively). The best model included: sex, age, and hypertension at the index date, as well as an outpatient specialty physician visit for OSA, a repeated sleep study, and a positive airway pressure treatment claim within 1 year since the index date. INTERPRETATION: Among adults who underwent a sleep study, case-ascertainment models for identifying moderate/severe OSA using health administrative data had relatively low sensitivity but high specificity and good discriminative ability. These findings could help study trends and outcomes of OSA individuals using routinely collected health care data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.130
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.204
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1300.204
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.416
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.125 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical EpidemiologySame topicObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchFrench-language works237,207