Can Nocturnal Oximetry Parameters Differentiate Infants Without and With Upper Airway Obstruction?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nocturnal oximetry results represent one of 3 facets describing sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) severity in infancy, the other 2 being exam/DISE findings and caregiver sleep concerns. We speculated that oxygen desaturation (>=3%) index (ODI3) and/or McGill oximetry score (MOS) can discriminate infants with clinically apparent upper airway obstruction (UAO) from those without (controls). Methods: ODI3 values in 1-12 m.o. infants with UAO or controls were compared to published age-adjusted, upper reference ODI3 values (Kaditis and Gozal. Children 2022). Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of abnormal ODI3 and MOS>1 for UAO were calculated. Results: Data from 20 infants with UAO (Apert syndrome;choanal atresia; hypoplastic mandible/Robin sequence; laryngomalacia), median age 2.2 m (1.1-7.3) and median ODI3 13.3/h (0.9-38.8) and from 88 controls (age 3.5 m;1-12.2) (Table 1) were analyzed. TABLE 1. erj;64/suppl_68/PA1361/TB1 T1 TB1 Controls:Age subgroups 1-2 mo (n=39) 3-4 mo (n=15) 5-6 m (n=16) 7-8 m (n=6) 9-10 m (n=7) 11-12 m (n=5) ODI3 values in controls: median (10th-90th percentile) 6.7 (1.9-14.4) 5.3 (2.7-15.3) 4.2 (2-10.8) 6 (0.9-7) 4.2 (1.1-6.9) 4.3 (0.9-5.8) 5 of 20 (25%) infants with UAO had abnormal ODI3, 15 of 20 (75%) MOS>1 and 5 of 20 (25%) both abnormal ODI3 and MOS (kappa 0.158-weak). MOS>1 but not abnormal ODI3 has modest sensitivity and adequate NPV for detecting UAO (Table 2). TABLE 2. erj;64/suppl_68/PA1361/TB2 T2 TB2 Sensitivity Specificity PPV NPV Abnormal ODI3 5/20 (25%) 88/88 (100%) 5/5 (100%) 88/103 (85.4%) Abnormal MOS 15/20 (75%) 64/88 (72.7%) 15/39 (38.5%) 64/69 (92.8%) Conclusion: To assess UAO severity in infancy, oximetry results should be interpreted in the context of exam/DISE findings and caregiver reported sleep concerns.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".