Why the study?
More than 80% of patients with moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea remain undiagnosed timely, motivating a prediction model to screen high-risk patients.
Does a random forest algorithm based on heart rate variability improve screening for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea compared to logistic regression?
Does a random forest algorithm based on heart rate variability improve screening for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea compared to logistic regression?
A random forest prediction model incorporating heart rate variability can effectively and accurately screen patients for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea.
May aid undiagnosed OSA screening; leaves open external validation before clinical adoption.
PURPOSE: More than 80% of patients with moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) are still not diagnosed timely. The prediction model based on random forest (RF) algorithm was established by using heart rate variability (HRV), clinical and demographic features so as to screen for the patients with high risk of moderate and severe obstructive sleep apnea. METHODS: The sleep monitoring data of 798 patients were randomly divided into training set (n = 558) and test set (n = 240) in 7:3 proportion. Grid search was applied to determine the best parameters of the RF model. 10-fold cross validation was utilized to evaluate the predictive performance of the RF model, which was then compared to the performance of the Logistic regression model. RESULTS: . The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, F1 score and the area under receiver operating characteristic curve for RF model and Logistic regression model were 94.68% vs. 73.94%; 73.08% vs. 86.54%; 90.00% vs. 76.67%; 0.94 vs. 0.83 and 0.83 vs. 0.80 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The RF prediction model can effectively distinguish patients with moderate to severe OSA, which is expected to carry out in a large-scale population in order to screening for high-risk patients, and helps to evaluate the effect of OSA treatment continuously.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: