This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Background: Sleep questionnaires are widely used to screen for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), but their incremental value beyond collecting basic demographics is rarely assessed. Using a large sample of sleep clinic intake questionnaire data that includes the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, questions on snoring and breathing pause as well as medical history data, we quantified questionnaire-item contributions relative to demographics for OSA severity classification. Methods: In a retrospective cohort of 67,397 adults referred for in-laboratory polysomnography and with questionnaire data, XGBoost classifiers were trained on all features (169 variables), questionnaire items only (161), or demographics only (age, gender, BMI, race; 4). Outcomes were the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) and respiratory disturbance index (RDI) at 5, 15 and 30 events/h, evaluated on a held-out 10% test set; TabPFN v2.5 served as a secondary comparator. SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) analysis was performed globally and within age and BMI strata; Berlin and STOP-Bang were not evaluated. Results: At AHI ≥ 5, ≥ 15 and ≥ 30, the demographics-only model reached area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) 0.749, 0.718 and 0.726, 0.016-0.038 below the all-features model; across all six endpoints it retained 86-94% of the above-chance AUROC. The questionnaire-only model performed worst (AUROC 0.674-0.699 for AHI). Age, BMI and gender were the leading SHAP predictors at every threshold, and the contributions of age and BMI varied across strata. Four-class severity classification was poor (XGBoost accuracy ≤ 0.45). Conclusions: In this referred cohort, four demographic variables captured most of the achievable discrimination, and the questionnaire added at most 0.038 AUROC. Questionnaire-based screening tools should be benchmarked against a demographic baseline, and prospective validation is needed.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Patted et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: