MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4293067266 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsac079.414

0417 Odds Ratio Product reveals distinct sleep phenotypes in idiopathic hypersomnia

2022· article· en· W4293067266 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Robert, Bethany Gerardy, Margaret Blattner, Magdy Younes

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolysomnographyOdds ratioQuartileMedicineSleep (system call)Non-rapid eye movement sleepSleep StagesConfidence intervalSleep onsetAnesthesiaInsomniaInternal medicinePediatricsPsychiatryElectroencephalographyApnea

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction The pathophysiology of idiopathic hypersomnia with long sleep times (IH) remains an enigma. Alternate methods to characterize sleep such as the Odds Ratio Product (ORP), a continuous measure of sleep depth, has the potential to improve understanding of IH. Methods The Odds ratio product is a continuous measure of sleep depth and propensity ranging 0 (very deep sleep) to 2.5 (Least sleep propensity). The difference between 2.5 and ORP in any epoch indicates extent of wake suppression (sleep depth) for that epoch. The cumulative sleep index (CSI) is the integral of sleep suppression across recording time thereby reflecting both the duration and depth of sleep over specified intervals (higher value is deeper and longer sleep). 36 patients with long sleep (600 minutes or longer) recorded through unconstrained polysomnography were analyzed using ORP across the full study (12.7±1.7 hours). Participants were divided into quartiles, 9 patients each(Q1-Q4) based on accumulated sleep across the entire study. Results The mean age for the cohort was 35.8 ± 16.2, of which 29/36 were females. Total sleep time by visual scoring was 679.4 ± 96.4 minutes (range: 601.5 - 1145) minutes). The whole night CSI mean was 989.39 ± 271.64 units (range: 345 to 1427). The quartile values were 618.33 ± 178.83, 919.33 ± 67.27, 1142.89 ± 39.01, and 1277 ± 69.39 units, and not related to total recording or sleep time. The NREM sleep ORP was 1.43± 0.32, 1.06 ± 0.22, 0.73± 0.13 and 0.67 ± 0.19, respectively. This distribution was true for REM sleep ORP also: 1.52 ± 0.30, 1.26 ± 0.19, 1.05 ± 0.25, and 0.84 ± 0.21, respectively. The trait-like ORP-9 (9 seconds post-arousal), and a reflection of sleep fragmentation propensity, was also similarly distributed: 1.60 ± 0.30, 1.29 ± 0.27, 0.92 ± 0.15, and 0.80 ± 0.18, respectively. All comparisons were statistically significant by Tukey multiple comparisons. Conclusion Patients with IH are not homogenous, showing a range of sleep depth in both NREM and REM sleep regardless of total sleep time. These phenotypes of IH could reflect unique endotypic mechanisms, requiring different therapies or have differential treatment responses. 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEP→Same topicSleep and Wakefulness Research→French-language works237,207→