Barriers of artificial intelligence implementation in the diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea is a common clinical condition and has a significant impact on the health of patients if untreated. The current diagnostic gold standard for obstructive sleep apnea is polysomnography, which is labor intensive, requires specialists to utilize, expensive, and has accessibility challenges. There are also challenges with awareness and identification of obstructive sleep apnea in the primary care setting. Artificial intelligence systems offer the opportunity for a new diagnostic approach that addresses the limitations of polysomnography and ultimately benefits patients by streamlining the diagnostic expedition. MAIN BODY: The purpose of this project is to elucidate the barriers that exist in the implementation of artificial intelligence systems into the diagnostic context of obstructive sleep apnea. It is essential to understand these challenges in order to proactively create solutions and establish an efficient adoption of this new technology. The literature regarding the evolution of the diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea, the role of artificial intelligence in the diagnosis, and the barriers in artificial intelligence implementation was reviewed and analyzed. CONCLUSION: The barriers identified were categorized into different themes including technology, data, regulation, human resources, education, and culture. Many of these challenges are ubiquitous across artificial intelligence implementation in any medical diagnostic setting. Future research directions include developing solutions to the barriers presented in this project.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".