Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Calgary Sleep Apnea Quality of Life Index (SAQLI) was developed to record key elements of the disease that are important to patients. All items felt to influence the quality of life of these patients were identified. Final questionnaire items were selected by interviewing 113 patients with sleep apnea and 50 snorers who rated each item on whether it was a problem and the importance of it to their overall quality of life. Items for the final questionnaire were selected based on the rank order of the frequency ximportance product. The rank ordering was similar across strata of disease severity and between sexes. The Calgary SAQLI has 35 questions organized into four domains: daily functioning, social interactions, emotional functioning, and symptoms. A fifth domain, treatment-related symptoms, can be added for clinical intervention trials to record the possible negative impacts of treatment. The SAQLI has a high degree of internal consistency, face validity as judged by content experts and patients, and construct validity as shown by its positive correlations with the SF-36 and the improvement in scores in patients successfully completing a 4-wk trial of continuous positive airway pressure. It includes items shown to be important to patients with sleep apnea and is designed as a measure of outcome in clinical trials in sleep apnea. Flemons WW, Reimer MA. Development of a disease-specific health-related quality of life questionnaire for sleep apnea.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".