Singapore consensus statements on the management of obstructive sleep apnoea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is common in Singapore, with moderate to severe OSA affecting around 30% of residents. These consensus statements aim to provide scientifically grounded recommendations for the management of OSA, standar-dise the management of OSA in Singapore and promote multidisciplinary collaboration. Method: An expert panel, which was convened in 2024, identified several areas of OSA management that require guidance. The expert panel reviewed the current literature and developed consensus statements, which were later independently voted on using a 3-point Likert scale (agree, neutral or disagree). Consensus (total ratings of agree and neutral) was set a priori at ≥80% agreement. Any statement not reaching consensus was excluded. Results: The final consensus included 49 statements that provide guidance on the screening, diagnosis and management of adults with OSA. Additionally, 23 statements on the screening, diagnosis and management of paediatric OSA achieved consensus. These 72 consensus statements considered not only the latest clinical evidence but also the benefits and harms, resource implications, feasibility, acceptability and equity impact of the recommendations. Conclusion: The statements presented in this paper aim to guide clinicians based on the most updated evidence and collective expert opinion from sleep specialists in Singapore. These recommendations should augment clinical judgement rather than replace it. Management decisions should be individualised, taking into account the patient's clinical characteristics, as well as patient and caregiver concerns and preferences.
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 | 0.137 | 0.211 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".