MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W50571350

Differences in pulse oximetry technology can affect detection of sleep-disorderd breathing in children.

2002· article· en· W50571350 on OpenAlexaff
Robert T. Brouillette, Jacinthe Lavergne, Andra Leimanis, Gillian M. Nixon, Sylvia Ladan, Christine D. McGregor

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulse oximetryPolysomnographyBreathingPulse (music)AnesthesiaArtifact (error)Sleep disordered breathingApneaObstructive sleep apnea
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Newer pulse oximeters have been developed to be motion resistant and thus have few false alarms. However, they have not yet been evaluated in a pediatric sleep laboratory setting. While evaluating new oximeters for use in our laboratory, we obtained simultaneous pulse oximetry data from two Masimo oximeters and from two Nellcor oximeters during nocturnal polysomnography in children referred for sleep-disordered breathing (SDB). In series 1, comprising 24 patients, comparisons were made between a Masimo oximeter with 4-second averaging time and the Nellcor N-200 oximeter set for 3 to 5 second averaging. A maximum of 20 events per patient were randomly selected for analysis, an "event" being a desaturation of > or = 4% registered by either oximeter. Interobserver agreement for event classification was 93%. Eighty-eight percent of 220 desaturation events occurring during wakefulness and 38% of 194 events occurring during sleep were classified as motion artifact on the Nellcor oximeter. Neither the Masimo oximeter nor the transcutaneous oxygen probe confirmed that the desaturation was real, in most of these cases. During sleep, there were 119 events detected by either or both oximeters: 113 (95%) by the Nellcor versus 82 (69%) by the Masimo. For these 119 events, the extent of desaturation was slightly less for the Masimo than the Nellcor oximeter, 4.5 +/- 2.4% versus 5.5 +/- 2.5%, respectively. In series 2, 22 patients were studied comparing a Masimo Radical oximeter with 2 second averaging to the Nellcor N-200 oximeter. The extent of desaturation was slightly greater for the Masimo oximeter. The Masimo oximeter detected more non-artifactual desaturation events occurring during sleep than the Nellcor oximeter, 90% versus 76% (chi2 = 9.9, p < 0.01). In series 3, comprising 128 events in 5 patients, a Nellcor N-395 oximeter detected fewer desaturations during non-movement, sleep periods and had more movement related "desaturation" events, compared to a Masimo Radical oximeter. CONCLUSIONS: The Masimo oximeters register many fewer false desaturations due to motion artifact. Using 4-second averaging, a Masimo oximeter detected significantly fewer SaO2 dips than the Nellcor N-200 oximeter but using 2-second averaging, the Masimo oximeter detected more SaO2 dips than the Nellcor N-200 oximeter. The sensitivity and motion artifact rejection characteristics of the Nellcor N-395 oximeter are not adequate for a pediatric sleep laboratory setting. These findings suggest that in a pediatric sleep laboratory, use of a Masimo oximeter with very short averaging time could significantly reduce workload and improve reliability of desaturation detection.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.401
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations50
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchFrench-language works237,207