Diagnostic accuracy of portable sleep monitors in pediatric sleep apnea: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, a plethora of new type III and IV portable sleep monitors (PSM) have been developed, although evidence regarding their diagnostic accuracy for use in children remains heterogeneous. This study systematically reviews the literature addressing the diagnostic accuracies of type III and IV PSM for pediatric sleep apnea. Publications indexed in Medline, Embase, or Web of Science were reviewed using the PRISMA framework. Of 1054 studies, 62 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of the studies evaluating oximetry-based type IV PSM, one (6.25 %) demonstrated a balanced set of high (≥80 %) sensitivities and specificities for the diagnosis of any pediatric sleep apnea, while five studies (27.8 %) showed similar accuracies for moderate-to-severe sleep apnea. For non-oximetry-based type IV PSM, two studies (40 %) reported a balanced set of high diagnostic accuracies for moderate-to-severe sleep apnea. Type III PSM repeatedly demonstrated higher diagnostic accuracies, with six studies (66.7 %) reporting a balanced set of high diagnostic accuracies for moderate-to-severe sleep apnea. This review highlights the potential of type III PSM to detect moderate-to-severe pediatric sleep apnea, although current evidence is limited to support the stand-alone use of type IV PSM for the diagnosis of sleep apnea in most children.
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 | 0.006 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".