Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32210294›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

A machine learning-based test for adult sleep apnoea screening at home using oximetry and airflow.

Daniel Álvarez, Ana Cerezo-Hernández, Andrea Crespo, Gonzalo C Gutiérrez-Tobal, Fernando Vaquerizo-Villar, Verónica Barroso-García, Fernando Moreno, C Ainhoa Arroyo, Tomás Ruiz, Roberto Hornero and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. [Sleep Innovation].Open respiratory archives · 2024
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Perspective: A resident's role in promoting safe machine-learning tools in sleep medicine.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel ÁlvarezPneumology Department, Río Hortega University Hospital, Valladolid, Spain. dalvarezgo@saludcastillayleon.es.
Ana Cerezo-HernándezPneumology Department, Río Hortega University Hospital, Valladolid, Spain.
Andrea CrespoPneumology Department, Río Hortega University Hospital, Valladolid, Spain.
Gonzalo C Gutiérrez-TobalBiomedical Engineering Group, University of Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain.
Fernando Vaquerizo-VillarBiomedical Engineering Group, University of Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain.
Verónica Barroso-GarcíaBiomedical Engineering Group, University of Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain.
Fernando MorenoPneumology Department, Río Hortega University Hospital, Valladolid, Spain.
C Ainhoa ArroyoPneumology Department, Río Hortega University Hospital, Valladolid, Spain.
Tomás RuizPneumology Department, Río Hortega University Hospital, Valladolid, Spain.
Roberto HorneroBiomedical Engineering Group, University of Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain.
Félix Del CampoPneumology Department, Río Hortega University Hospital, Valladolid, Spain.
Hospital Universitario Río Hortega · ESUniversidad de Valladolid · ESBiomedical Research Networking Center in Bioengineering, Biomaterials and Nanomedicine · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The most appropriate physiological signals to develop simplified as well as accurate screening tests for obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) remain unknown. This study aimed at assessing whether joint analysis of at-home oximetry and airflow recordings by means of machine-learning algorithms leads to a significant diagnostic performance increase compared to single-channel approaches. Consecutive patients showing moderate-to-high clinical suspicion of OSA were involved. The apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI) from unsupervised polysomnography was the gold standard. Oximetry and airflow from at-home polysomnography were parameterised by means of 38 time, frequency, and non-linear variables. Complementarity between both signals was exhaustively inspected via automated feature selection. Regression support vector machines were used to estimate the AHI from single-channel and dual-channel approaches. A total of 239 patients successfully completed at-home polysomnography. The optimum joint model reached 0.93 (95%CI 0.90-0.95) intra-class correlation coefficient between estimated and actual AHI. Overall performance of the dual-channel approach (kappa: 0.71; 4-class accuracy: 81.3%) significantly outperformed individual oximetry (kappa: 0.61; 4-class accuracy: 75.0%) and airflow (kappa: 0.42; 4-class accuracy: 61.5%). According to our findings, oximetry alone was able to reach notably high accuracy, particularly to confirm severe cases of the disease. Nevertheless, oximetry and airflow showed high complementarity leading to a remarkable performance increase compared to single-channel approaches. Consequently, their joint analysis via machine learning enables accurate abbreviated screening of OSA at home.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAlgorithmsFemaleHumansMachine LearningMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedMonitoring, AmbulatoryOximetryPolysomnographyPulmonary VentilationReproducibility of ResultsRespiratory Physiological PhenomenaSleep Apnea, Obstructive

Identifiers

PMID32210294
PMCPMC7093547
OpenAlexW3013273332

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.