SynthesisEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2026
Multichannel machine learning for polysomnographic diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea: a Bayesian meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial Intelligence Diagnosis of Obstructive Sleep Apnea Using Overnight Pulse Oximetry: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- A Nomogram Model for Predicting Moderate to Severe OSA in Western China: A Retrospective Analysis.Nature and science of sleep · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundObstructive sleep apnea (OSA) affects 1 billion people globally, yet over 80% remain undiagnosed. The gold standard for diagnosis, overnight polysomnography, is highly accurate but labor-intensive, leading to delays and increased healthcare burden. Artificial intelligence (AI) models offer a promising alternative. This study pools existing evidence to evaluate AI-based OSA diagnostics.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore identified studies comparing AI models against the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) for OSA diagnosis. Studies evaluating models using random-split test sets or k-fold cross-validation were included in a Bayesian bivariate meta-analysis and meta-regression. Risk of bias and evidence quality were assessed using QUADAS-2 and GRADE.
resultsFrom 6,254 records, 7 studies with 19 AI models trained and tested on 7,547 and 7,471 participants were included. No study had a high risk of bias. AI achieved a pooled sensitivity of 89.2% (95% CrI: 81.5-94.3%) and specificity of 87.1% (95% CrI: 82.6-90.8%). Neural networks (NNs) were the best-performing AI model compared to the other subtypes, achieving a sensitivity of 92.8% (95% CrI: 84.8-96.6%) and specificity of 87.8% (95% CrI: 81.1-92.6%). Age and sex had no effect. No publication bias was detected, and the evidence was of high quality.
conclusionNeural Networks AI models trained on polysomnography demonstrated excellent diagnostic accuracy in diagnosing OSA as compared to traditional machine learning. There is a need for further exploration and external validation of AI models to support their integration into routine sleep medicine practice, hence improving access to efficient and accurate OSA diagnosis. PROSPERO registration: CRD42024534235.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41243013What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.