0459 Diagnostic Performance of Symptomless Obstructive Sleep Apnea Prediction Tools in Clinical and Community-based Samples
Introduction Most prediction tools for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) include patient reported symptoms. However, symptoms may not be available in electronic medical records for widespread identification of OSA. Thus, we developed OSA predictions without patient reported symptoms using logistic regre...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Sleep (New York, N.Y.) N.Y.), 2019-04, Vol.42 (Supplement_1), p.A184-A185 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Introduction Most prediction tools for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) include patient reported symptoms. However, symptoms may not be available in electronic medical records for widespread identification of OSA. Thus, we developed OSA predictions without patient reported symptoms using logistic regression (LOG) or artificial neural network (ANN) and validated their performance in an international clinical sample and in a community-based sample. Methods Retrospective data on 17,448 subjects who underwent polysomnography in five international sleep centers within the Sleep Apnea Global Interdisciplinary Consortium were allocated into training (n=10,469) and validation sets (n=6,979). Two models to predict the presence of OSA (Apnea Hypopnea Index ≥15 events/hour) were developed from the training set based on probabilities derived from LOG and ANN using age, gender, BMI, and ethnicity. Model performance was evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC), positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV), sensitivity and specificity, and positive (+LR) and negative likelihood ratios (-LR). The predictive models were validated in the clinical sample and in the Sleep Heart Heath Study (SHHS) community-based sample (n=5,761). Results In the clinical sample validation group, the LOG model had sensitivity=0.65, specificity=0.51, PPV=0.60, NPV=0.56, +LR=1.32, -LR=0.69, and AUC=0.61. The corresponding ANN values were sensitivity=0.74, specificity=0.51, PPV=0.63, NPV=0.64, +LR=1.51, -LR=0.50 and AUC=0.68. The ANN performed significantly better than LOG (p |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0161-8105 1550-9109 |
DOI: | 10.1093/sleep/zsz067.458 |