CPAP Adherence Assessment via Gaussian Mixture Modeling of Telemonitored Apnea Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sleep disorders pose serious cardiovascular threats if not treated effectively. However, adherence to Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP), the most recommended therapy, is known to be challenging to monitor. Telemonitored CPAP equipment has improved the follow-up of CPAP adherence (hours of use per night) by producing far larger amounts of data collected daily. The analysis of such data have relied on averaging the entire therapeutic history and interpreting it without a proper reference concerning the level of adherence. By contrast, we contribute with an unsupervised machine-learning methodology that (i) translates the adherence data to a scale of discrete numbers that hold correspondence to the most usual 30-day-long patterns as observed in a real-word database; (ii) avoids the loss of information aggregation problem by creating summaries of the time series that capture the dynamic nature of the everyday-use CPAP. Our experiments have detected eight particular adherence behaviors validated with information-oriented statistical criteria; we successfully applied them to the time series of a French hospital to produce summaries that reflect the adherence of any 30 days of interest. Our method can aid physicians in more precisely evaluating the therapy adherence, as well as fostering systems to alert of problems in the treatment automatically.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".