MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401614734 · doi:10.1183/13993003.00560-2024

Association between a recalled positive airway pressure device and incident cancer: a population-based study

2024· article· en· W4401614734 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Tetyana Kendzerska, Sachin R. Pendharkar, Robert Talarico, Kenneth Blades, Constance A. Mackenzie, Andrea S. Gershon, Najib Ayas, Marta Kamińska, Mark Fenton, Kerry McBrien, Steven Hawken, Diana Ratycz, Vadym Lishchenko, Robert L. Owens, Marcus Povitz

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTracheal and airway disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversity of SaskatchewanHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of British Columbia HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreWestern UniversityUniversity of CalgaryOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioPropensity score matchingPopulationDemographyCancerConcordanceRecallCancer registryInternal medicineConfidence intervalEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The real-world consequences of a Philips Respironics recall for positive airway pressure (PAP) devices distributed between 2009 and 2021 are unknown. Methods We conducted a retrospective population-based study using health administrative databases (Ontario, Canada) on all new adult PAP users identified through the provincial funding system, free of cancer at baseline, who initiated (claimed) PAP treatment between 2012 and 2018. Everyone was followed from the PAP claim date to the earliest of incident cancer diagnosis, death or end of follow-up (March 2022). We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to balance baseline characteristics between individuals on recalled devices and those on devices from other manufacturers. Weighted hazard ratios of incident cancer were compared between groups. Results Of 231 692 individuals identified, 58 204 (25.1%) claimed recalled devices and 173 488 (74.9%) claimed devices from other manufacturers. A meaningful baseline difference between groups (standardised difference ≥0.10) was noted only by location-relevant covariates; other variables were mostly equally distributed (standardised differences ≤0.06). Over a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 6.3 (4.9–8.0) years, 11 166 (4.8%) developed cancer: unadjusted rates per 10 000 person-years of 78.8 (95% CI 76.0–81.7) in the recall groupversus74.0 (95% CI 72.4–75.6) in others (p=0.0034). Propensity score weighting achieved excellent balance in baseline characteristics between groups (standardised differences ≤0.07). On a weighted sample, there was no statistical difference in the hazard of incident cancer between groups: cause-specific hazard ratio (recalledversusothers) 0.97 (95% CI 0.89–1.06). Conclusion In our real-world population study, compared to other manufacturers and adjusting for confounders, recalled Philips Respironics PAP devices do not appear to be independently associated with developing cancer.

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 score0.344
Threshold uncertainty score0.683

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory JournalSame topicTracheal and airway disordersFrench-language works237,207