2024 Standardization of Polysomnography Reports – A Consensus of the Brazilian Sleep Association
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction The absence of standardized reporting for sleep medicine exams across different laboratories can lead to misinterpretation, diagnostic inconsistencies, and suboptimal treatment strategies. This document seeks to establish guidelines for the development of sleep study reports, covering recordings from studies of types 1 to 4, and represents the official position of Associação Brasileira do Sono (ABS; Brazilian Sleep Association) on the standardization of polysomnography (PSG) and cardiorespiratory polygraphies. Materials and Methods The recommendations for the items to be reported in PSG records were developed by means of a Delphi study, comprised of two voting rounds. In each round, participants had to vote regarding the appropriateness of items to be reported in type-1 to -4 sleep studies, rating them as recommended, optional, or not recommended. The consensus threshold was set at 66% in each voting round, or 75% for the combined responses of recommended and optional. Results The panel was comprised of 29 experts. After 2 voting rounds and subsequent deliberations by the steering committee, 352 items were included in the final set of recommendations. Consensus was achieved for 339 items (96.3%), of which 145 (41.2%) were classified as recommended, 154 as optional (43.8%), 35 as not recommended (9.9%), and 5 as not allowed (1.4%). No consensus was reached for 13 items (3.7%). The items recommended in this consensus are detailed in the main text. Conclusion These guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for reporting diagnostic tests in sleep medicine.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".