MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7007884034

The Association of Body Mass Index and Adiposity-Estimating Equations with Measures of Obstructive Sleep Apnea Severity: A Cross-Sectional Study

2025· article· en· W7007884034 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBody mass indexObstructive sleep apneaPolysomnographyCohortSleep medicineLogistic regressionPopulationSleep apneaApnea–hypopnea index
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Danny Wadden,1 Mysa Saad,2 George Chandy,3 Shawn D Aaron,3,4 Zhiwei Gao,5 Jamie Farrell,1 Elham Sabri,6 Bashour Yazji,4 Tetyana Kendzerska3,4 1Discipline of Medicine (Respirology), Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University, St. John’s, NL, Canada; 2Department of Medicine, Memorial University, St. John’s, NL, Canada; 3Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Division of Respirology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; 4The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; 5Division of Population Health & Applied Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University, St. John’s, NL, Canada; 6Ottawa Methods Center, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, CanadaCorrespondence: Tetyana Kendzerska, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute/ University of Ottawa, 1053 Carling Ave, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4E9, Canada, Email tkendzerska@toh.caBackground and Purpose: Obesity, a risk factor for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), is usually estimated by body mass index (BMI). However, other adiposity-estimating equations may better capture variations in fat distribution. This study assessed the relationship between OSA severity and 15 adiposity-estimating equations, compared to BMI, with subgroup analyses by sex and age (< 50 vs ≥ 50).Patients and Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional cohort study using data from 5021 consecutive adults who underwent a Level 1 polysomnography (2015– 2017) in a large academic sleep center in Ottawa, Canada. We assessed correlations between adiposity measures and the apnea–hypopnea index (AHI) and examined discriminative ability for moderate-to-severe (AHI ≥ 15/h) and severe OSA (AHI > 30/h) using univariate logistic regressions.Results: The mean age was 49.5 years, 46.6% were women; the mean BMI was 30.0 kg/m2 and 12.7% had severe OSA. All adiposity equations showed negligible (Pearson r 0.0 to ± 0.3) to low (Pearson r ± 0.30 to 0.50) statistically significant correlations with AHI, with many of the equations having a marginally stronger correlation coefficient than BMI, in total and subgroup analysis. Discriminative ability for severe OSA was generally low, with c-indices ranging from 0.52 to 0.67 in the overall sample. However, in females under 50, several equations (eg, Gallagher 2000, Deurenberg 1991 and 1998, ECORE BF) reached excellent discriminative ability (c-indices 0.81), including BMI (c-index 0.80). This pattern was not observed in other subgroups.Conclusion: In this clinical cohort, BMI was associated poorly with AHI; however, the other equations did not outperform BMI. Moreover, BMI demonstrated poor discriminative ability for moderate/severe and severe OSA, with none of the other equations performing better in this context. Notable subgroup differences—particularly among younger females—suggest that tailoring screening strategies by age and sex may improve risk stratification and support refining obesity-based screening approaches.Keywords: obstructive sleep apnea, body mass index, adiposity, equations, apnea–hypopnea index, discriminative ability, sex and age stratification

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.378 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research→French-language works237,207→