MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3216272773

THE PREVALENCE OF INSOMNIA AND SLEEP APNEA IN DISCHARGE ABSTRACT DATA: A CALL TO IMPROVE DATA QUALITY.

2021· article· en· W3216272773 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
E Danielle, Roshanne Fox, Natalie Wiebe, Danielle A. Southern, Hude Quan, Ellena Kim, Chris King, Olga Grosu, Cathy A. Eastwood

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsomniaMedicineSleep apneaObstructive sleep apneaApneaChartSleep (system call)Emergency medicineSleep disorderDiagnosis codeIntensive care medicinePhysical therapyPediatricsPsychiatryInternal medicinePopulationEnvironmental health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Insomnia and sleep apnea are associated with a variety of comorbid conditions and carry a symptom burden to patients. As the prevalence of insomnia and sleep apnea continue to rise, it is imperative that appropriate tools are implemented to accurately capture their prevalence in acute care settings. A retrospective chart review was conducted on 3,074 inpatient charts in Calgary, Alberta. The estimated prevalence of insomnia was 10.36 percent, and sleep apnea was 6.56 percent in inpatient visits between January 1, 2015, and June 30, 2015. The sensitivity of insomnia and sleep apnea were low, and the specificity was high when comparing the chart review to the ICD-10. As both insomnia and sleep apnea were associated with various comorbid conditions, it would be imperative that alternate methods are identified to capture and code them. This would enable clinicians to better identify and treat them, and ultimately improve patient care.

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)0.140
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.383
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.860
Threshold uncertainty score0.741

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1400.383
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.018
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0090.006
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.271 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainReproducibility
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research→French-language works237,207→