FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3014852912> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3014852912 endingPage "1178" @default.
• W3014852912 startingPage "1171" @default.
• W3014852912 abstract "Free AccessScientific InvestigationsA sleep apnea prediction model developed for African Americans: the Jackson Heart Sleep Study Dayna A. Johnson, PhD, MPH, MS, MSW, Tamar Sofer, PhD, Na Guo, MS, James Wilson, MD, Susan Redline, MD, MPH Dayna A. Johnson, PhD, MPH, MS, MSW Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta Georgia; Division of Sleep and Circadian Disorders, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Search for more papers by this author , Tamar Sofer, PhD Division of Sleep and Circadian Disorders, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Sleep Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts; Search for more papers by this author , Na Guo, MS Division of Sleep and Circadian Disorders, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Search for more papers by this author , James Wilson, MD Department of Medicine, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi; Search for more papers by this author , Susan Redline, MD, MPH Division of Sleep and Circadian Disorders, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Sleep Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts; Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts Search for more papers by this author Published Online:July 15, 2020https://doi.org/10.5664/jcsm.8452Cited by:5SectionsAbstractPDFSupplemental Material ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations AboutABSTRACTStudy Objectives:African Americans have a high prevalence of severe sleep apnea that is often undiagnosed. We developed a prediction model for sleep apnea and compared the predictive values of that model to other prediction models among African Americans in the Jackson Heart Sleep Study.Methods:Participants in the Jackson Heart Sleep Study underwent a type 3 home sleep apnea study and completed standardized measurements and questionnaires. We identified 26 candidate predictors from 17 preselected measures capturing information on demographics, anthropometry, sleep, and comorbidities. To develop the optimal prediction model, we fit logistic regression models using all possible combinations of candidate predictors. We then implemented a series of steps: comparisons of equivalent models based on the C-statistics, bootstrap to evaluate the finite sample properties of the C-statistics between models, and fivefold cross-validation to prevent overfitting.Results:Of 719 participants, 38% had moderate or severe sleep apnea, 34% were male, and 38% reported habitual snoring. The average age and body mass index were 63.2 (standard deviation:10.7) years and 32.2 (standard deviation: 7.0) kg/m2. The final prediction model included age, sex, body mass index, neck circumference, depressive symptoms, snoring, restless sleep, and witnessed apneas. The final model has an equal sensitivity and specificity of 0.72 and better predictive properties than commonly used prediction models.Conclusions:In comparing a prediction model developed for African Americans in the Jackson Heart Sleep Study to widely used screening tools, we found a model that included measures of demographics, anthropometry, depressive symptoms, and sleep patterns and symptoms better predicted sleep apnea.Citation:Johnson DA, Sofer T, Guo N, Wilson J, Redline S. A sleep apnea prediction model developed for African Americans: the Jackson Heart Sleep Study. J Clin Sleep Med. 2020;16(7):1171–1178.BRIEF SUMMARYCurrent Knowledge/Study Rationale: With the growing recognition of the burden of sleep apnea, particularly among African Americans, it is important to develop screening tools for use. Also, the predictive ability of commonly used screening tools among African Americans is unknown.Study Impact: Using a range of measures we were able to develop internally validated screening models, which generally had a better prediction performance than other well-known screening tools such as STOP-Bang, NoSAS (Neck, Obesity, Snoring, Age, Sex), and the Hispanic Community Health Study. The prediction models we developed have utility in both clinical settings and research.INTRODUCTIONObstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a highly prevalent sleep disorder, estimated to occur in approximately 25 million American adults, and is increasing in prevalence.1,2 The prevalence is higher among males, individuals who are overweight/obese, and racial/ethnic minorities.1,3,4 OSA is a disorder in which recurrent periods of apneas and hypopneas occur, resulting in intermittent hypoxemia and sleep disruption.5 The disorder is often undiagnosed and untreated,6,7 particularly among African Americans.8 Epidemiologic studies have implicated OSA as associated with several chronic conditions including obesity, diabetes, hypertension, stroke, and depression.9–11 To potentially reduce its public health burden, it is important to screen individuals at increased risk for OSA, such as African Americans, who have a high prevalence but commonly undiagnosed and untreated.Snoring is one of the most commonly recognized symptoms of sleep apnea.1 It is estimated that approximately 25–50% of individuals who snore loudly have OSA. Information on self-reported snoring is more commonly available in large cohort studies and is more easily ascertained clinically than objectively measured sleep apnea. However, relying solely on self-reports of snoring is not adequate for OSA screening. Snoring is often underreported, and lack of bed partners to report snoring may introduce misclassification. Furthermore, population groups may variably report snoring information. For example, the Cleveland Family Study reported that among individuals with OSA, snoring was underreported in African American males, those without a bed partner, and those with less than a high school education.12 Snoring may also be underreported among women, in whom symptoms of depressed mood and insomnia may co-occur with OSA.13,14 Given the high prevalence of undiagnosed OSA among African American men and women, there is a clear need to develop a prediction model for OSA screening that is inclusive of several OSA symptoms beyond snoring to improve prediction of OSA in this population.There are several validated screening tools for sleep apnea, such as the STOP-Bang questionnaire,15 Berlin,16 Neck, Obesity, Snoring, Age, Sex (NoSAS),17 OSA-50,18 and Multivariate Apnea Prediction model.19 These scales assess a variety of symptoms and clinical conditions including snoring, age, sex, witnessed choking/gasping or stopped breathing, obesity, sleepiness, high blood pressure, and others. Most of the scales were validated among a population that was mostly non-Hispanic white, which limits generalizability. More recently, a 4-item (age, sex, snoring, and body mass index [BMI]) prediction equation for sleep apnea was developed among a Hispanic population.20 The ability to predict sleep apnea based on this prediction equation for African Americans is unknown. Given that African Americans have a high prevalence of obesity,21 measurement of body fat distribution, such as neck or waist circumference, may provide better prediction than BMI.We developed a comprehensive prediction model for OSA among African Americans in the Jackson Heart Sleep Study (JHSS), an epidemiologic study of sleep disorders and risk factors in African Americans. To develop the model, we considered demographic, adiposity, sleep symptoms, and comorbidity data. We evaluated various combinations of the data to an objective measure of OSA derived from in-home sleep apnea testing. We also compared the predictive power of the new model to well-established screening models such as STOP-Bang questionnaire, NoSAS, and the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL) model. We performed a rigorous assessment of model performances using bootstrap and cross-validation to prevent overfitting to the specific dataset.METHODSThe Jackson Heart Study (JHS) is a longitudinal study of 5,306 African American adults 21–95 years of age from 3 counties in Jackson, Mississippi (Hinds, Madison, and Rankin). The details of the JHS design have been previously published.22 In brief, JHS was designed to prospectively assess the etiology of cardiovascular disease among African Americans. The baseline assessment was between September 2000 and March 2004, followed by 2 examinations. The current paper uses data from the JHSS, which was conducted between December 2012 and May 2016 after the third examination. Institutional review board approval was obtained from the University of Mississippi and Partners Research Committee, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants.In brief, eligible participants in the JHSS were those who participated in the third JHS follow-up examination and other ancillary studies. Details regarding the recruitment into the JHSS has been previously published.8 Participants attended a clinic visit and underwent in-home sleep apnea testing, 1-week wrist actigraphy, fasting venipuncture, anthropometry, blood pressure and other vascular studies, and completed interviewer-administered sleep and health questionnaires.Sleep MeasuresSleep apnea was measured with a validated type 3 home sleep apnea device (Embletta-Gold device, Embla, Broomfield, CO),23,24 recording nasal pressure (measuring airflow); thoracic and abdominal inductance plethysmography; finger pulse oximetry; body position; and electrocardiography. The respiratory event index (REI) was derived by as the sum of all apneas plus hypopneas associated with ≥3% desaturation divided by the estimated sleep time. Sleep apnea was characterized by the standard REI categories of moderate or more severe OSA as REI ≥ 15 compared with none/mild (REI < 15). In sensitivity analyses, the REI was calculated based on all apneas plus hypopneas associated with a ≥4% desaturation.From the self-administered sleep questionnaire, we collected information on participants’ sleep patterns and symptoms. The sleep questionnaire was composed of the components based on the HCHS sleep questionnaire, STOP-bang, NoSAS, and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale. Frequency of snoring, witnessed breathing pauses, trouble falling asleep, and multiple awakenings at night were assessed on a 5-point Likert scale (0, <1, 1–2 times, 3–4 times, and ≥5 times per week), which were further dichotomized into binary variables (<3 and ≥3 times per week). “Don’t know” was added as the third category of the final snoring variable for those who reported so regarding their snoring status. Restless or very restless sleep was dichotomized from self-reported quality of typical night’s sleep (very sound or restful, sound to restful, average quality, restless, and very restless). Sleepiness was measured by the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, which has 8 questions asking participants to rate the likelihood of falling asleep under 8 scenarios on a 4-point Likert scale (0–3). The sum of 8-item scores (Epworth Sleepiness Scale score), ranging from 0 to 24, was dichotomized to indicate excessive daytime sleepiness (Epworth Sleepiness Scale score > 10).21 Weekly average sleep duration was calculated as the weighted average of self-reported sleep duration on weekdays and weekends. Participants who reported napping for at least 5 minutes once a week or more often were classified as having a napping habit.20DemographicsParticipants reported date of birth and sex (male or female).AnthropometryTrained staff following a standardized protocol measured height, weight, and waist and neck circumference. BMI was calculated as weight/height2 (kg/m2).Medical conditionsDepressive symptoms were assessed by the Center for Epidemiologic Studies of Depression scale. The Center for Epidemiologic Studies of Depression scale is a standardized, 20-item, self-reported instrument that measures the frequency of recently experienced depressive symptoms.25 Participants who have a Center for Epidemiologic Studies of Depression total score ≥ 16 were classified as having high depressive symptoms. Seated blood pressure measurements were obtained using an Omron HEM907XL blood pressure monitor (OMRON IntelliSense Professional Digital Blood Pressure Monitor, Bannockburn, IL) after 5 minutes of rest. Three seated blood pressure readings were taken 1 minute apart, and the last 2 were averaged. Hypertension was defined as a systolic blood pressure ≥ 130 mm Hg or a diastolic blood pressure ≥ 80 mm Hg, use of antihypertensive medications (self-report or identified from a medication inventory), or self-reported history of hypertension. Diabetes was defined as fasting glucose ≥ 126 mg/dL, use of antidiabetic medication, or self-reported diabetes diagnosis. History of heart diseases was defined as having any of the following: self-reported heart attack, heart bypass, stent procedure, or heart failure.STOP-Bang scoreSTOP-Bang questionnaire is a validated screening tool for sleep apnea, including 8 dichotomous questions regarding loud snoring, frequent tiredness/fatigue/sleepiness, observed breathing pause/choking/gasping, high blood pressure, obesity, age, neck size, and sex.15 Similar questions were collected in JHSS. A STOP-Bang total score was calculated by adding up the number of positive endorsement of 8 modified criteria: (1) snoring as louder than talking or very loud that can be heard in adjacent rooms in the last month, (2) responding ≥3 times per week to any of the following questions: “Did you feel overly sleepy during the day?/In the last 4 weeks, how often have you felt tired or fatigued after your sleep?/During your waking time in the last 4 weeks, have you felt tired, fatigued or not up to par?,” (3) reporting at least once a week for witnessed breathing pauses, (4) meeting the aforementioned definition of hypertension, (5) BMI > 35 kg/m2, (6) older than 50 years of age; (7) neck circumference ≥ 43 cm for male or ≥ 41 cm for female; and (8) self-identified as male. We evaluated the predictive properties of the STOP-Bang score under the widely used threshold (≥3) for moderate or high risk of OSA and the optimal cutoff score that maximized Youden’s index in our analytic sample.NoSAS scoreA group of researchers in Switzerland developed a simple clinical tool (NoSAS score) to screen people at risk for significant sleep-disordered breathing.17 Only neck circumference, overweight and obesity status, snoring, age, and sex were needed for calculating the NoSAS score: 4 points for neck size > 40 cm, 3 points for overweight (BMI = 25 to <30 kg/m2), 5 points for obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2), 2 points for snoring, 4 points for older age (>55 years), and 2 points for being male. We assessed the prediction performance of the NoSAS score using the recommended cutoff score (≥8) in addition to a threshold identified in our sample to be optimal.HCHS sleep apnea prediction modelShah et al20 developed a risk calculator for predicting sleep apnea in a cohort of Hispanic/Latino adults enrolled in the HCHS/SOL. We calculated the predicted probability using their prediction equations: 1/(1 + exp[−(−10.2561 + 0.0655 × Age + 0.1391 × BMI + 0.7006 × [1 if male, 0 if female] + 0.9481 × [if snoring ≥ 3 times a week, 0 if otherwise]20+ 0.1012 × [1 if doesn’t know snoring status, 0 if otherwise])]). Its prediction performance was evaluated under the given cutoff probability (≥0.12) and the optimal threshold probability in our sample.Statistical approachParticipants with complete data on sleep apnea and candidate predictors were included in the analytic sample. Frequency and percentage of categorical variables and mean and standard deviation of continuous variables were generated among the overall sample and by sleep apnea status. We conducted χ2 tests and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests to compare the distribution of categorical and continuous measures between participants with and without moderate-severe OSA as defined by the REI.To identify nonlinear terms in the prediction model, we allowed for nonlinear terms (interactions, squared, and cubic terms) if they passed the following screening step. For age, BMI, and neck and weight circumferences, we conducted likelihood ratio tests to examine the significance of quadratic and cubic terms in improving the goodness of fit of unadjusted logistic regression models separately for each predictor, retaining variables with P < .05. To identify potential modification of each of these by sex, we tested interaction terms and retained these based on P < .1.We constructed a base prediction model that included age, BMI, sex, and the two snoring variables described earlier. We considered additional models that include additional predictors. We fitted all possible models by adding different combinations of candidate predictors to the basic model while forcing in lower-order or main-effect terms if nonlinear or interaction terms were present (eg, if cubic age was included, linear and quadratic age was included as well). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, also called the C-statistic, was used to compare the prediction performance for all candidate models. We rounded the C-statistic to the third digit, assuming that greater precision is not meaningful.To select the best prediction model, we took a series of steps, with the following goals: (1) find the best model for each possible complexity level (defined by degrees of freedom); (2) remove models for which simpler models have equivalent performance; and (3) select the final probability model as the one that has the best out-of-sample performance. In detail, we first grouped the models by degrees of freedom and the model(s) with (tied) maximum C-statistic within each group were carried over to the next step. Second, we generated 500 bootstrap datasets with a sample size of 719 participants that were randomly resampled from the analytic sample with replacement. We evaluated the C-statistic of the retained models in each bootstrap dataset to examine the variability of its prediction performance over 500 samples. Then, we started from the basic (least complex) model and compared it with the model with the next complexity level (one degree of freedom greater). To compare these models, we obtained the bootstrap distribution of differences in C-statistic. If the median difference was ≥0.01, we kept the more complex model. Otherwise, we removed it from further considerations and took the simpler model for the next comparison. We repeated this procedure until all the models from the first step were evaluated. Third, we conducted fivefold cross-validation to evaluate the out-of-sample prediction performance of the models that were retained from the second step. We partitioned the analytic dataset evenly into 5 subsets, fitted each remaining model using 4 subsets as training datasets and validated them using the fifth subset as a testing dataset. Average C-statistic was calculated over 5 training and testing datasets. The model with the greatest average C-statistic among the testing dataset was chosen as the final prediction model.Standard measures of prediction model accuracy are specificity, sensitivity, and Youden’s index. Sensitivity is the proportion of individuals classified as high risk of sleep apnea out of those with sleep apnea; specificity is the proportion of individuals classified as low risk of sleep apnea out of those without sleep apnea; and Youden’s index is defined as the sum of sensitivity and specificity − 1. To compare the predictive properties of our models with other screening tools, 3 more logistic regression models were fit using the analytic dataset with continuous STOP-Bang score, NoSAS score, and HCHS sleep apnea prediction equation as a single predictor. For these three models and our retained models, we obtained the C-statistic, used the DeLong method (pROC packaged in R) to compute its 95% confidence interval, found the optimal cutoffs that maximized Youden’s index, and report the sensitivity, specificity, and Youden’s index for each model under the optimal and recommended cutoffs.SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) was used to generate descriptive statistics and screen for nonlinear terms. R 3.4.0 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) and R package pROC (version 1.10.0), caret (version 6.0-77), and PredictABEL (version 1.2-2) were applied for model development and evaluation procedures.RESULTSA total of 719 JHSS participants were included in the analyses, of whom, 38% have moderate or severe sleep apnea. The descriptive statistics of measures of demographics, anthropometry, sleep patterns and symptoms, and medical conditions among the total sample and by sleep apnea status are presented in Table 1. Overall, 34% were male and 38% were habitual snorers. The mean age and BMI were 63.2 (standard deviation: 10.7) years and 32.2 (standard deviation: 7.0) kg/m2, respectively. On average, participants with sleep apnea were older, had larger BMI and neck and waist circumferences, and were more likely to be male, report napping, have restless or very restless sleep, snore habitually, have witnessed apneas, and have measured hypertension and diabetes.Table 1 Selected study participant characteristics by sleep apnea severity (n = 719).CharacteristicOverall (n = 719, 100%)REI ≥ 15 (n = 272, 38%)REI < 15 (n = 447, 62%)PDemographics Male, n (%)242 (33.7%)110 (40.4%)132 (29.5%).003 Age (y), mean ± SD63.2 ± 10.764.5 ± 10.362.5 ± 10.9.029Anthropometry BMI (kg/m2), mean ± SD32.2 ± 7.034.7 ± 7.330.6 ± 6.4<.001 Waist circumference (cm), mean ± SD106.2 ± 16.3112.5 ± 15.7102.4 ± 15.4<.001 Neck circumference (cm), mean ± SD38.6 ± 4.140.2 ± 4.337.7 ± 3.6<.001Sleep patterns Average sleep duration (h), mean ± SD6.4 ± 1.56.5 ± 1.66.4 ± 1.4.315 Naps (≥once a week), n (%)409 (56.9%)173 (63.6%)236 (52.8%).005 Restless or very restless sleep, n (%)127 (17.7%)58 (21.3%)69 (15.4%).045 Multiple awakenings at night, n (%)266 (37.0%)106 (39.0%)160 (35.8%).392Sleep quality symptoms Trouble falling asleep, n (%)124 (17.3%)42 (15.4%)82 (18.3%).318Sleep apnea symptoms Snoring, n (%)<.001 ≥3 times a week273 (38.0%)134 (49.3%)139 (31.1%) <3 times a week257 (35.7%)87 (32.0%)170 (38.0%) Don’t know189 (26.3%)51 (18.7%)138 (30.9%) Witnessed apneas (≥3 times a week), n (%)32 (4.5%)18 (6.6%)14 (3.1%).028 Sleepiness (ESS > 10), n (%)148 (20.6%)61 (22.4%)87 (19.5%).341Medical conditions High depressive symptoms (CESD-20 ≥ 16), n (%)131 (18.2%)44 (16.2%)87 (19.5%).268 Hypertension, n (%)612 (85.1%)241 (88.6%)371 (83.0%).041 Diabetes, n (%)197 (27.4%)92 (33.8%)105 (23.5%).003 History of heart diseases, n (%)43 (6.0%)19 (7.0%)24 (5.4%).376BMI = body mass index, CESD = Center for Epidemiologic Studies of Depression, ESS = Epworth Sleepiness Scale, REI = respiratory event index.Model developmentBased on our predefined covariates, and following the criteria for inclusion of higher order terms (quadratic, cubic, and interactions) 26 variables were selected as candidate predictors, including age, age2, age3, waist, waist2, waist3, neck, neck2, neck3, sex, BMI, BMI2, average sleep duration, snoring, napping habit, restless or very restless sleep, multiple awakenings at night, trouble falling asleep, witnessed apneas, sleepiness, high depressive symptoms, hypertension, diabetes, history of heart diseases, and a sex-interaction term with sleepiness. We constructed all logistic regression models that included the basic variables (age, sex, BMI, snoring) and all other combinations of predictors. These formed 22 groups by levels of complexity (degrees of freedom, range: 5–26). Of these, 147 models with (tied) maximum C-statistic per group were retained. Figure 1 shows the distribution of tied model numbers and maximum C-statistic per group.Figure 1: Number of models with maximum C-statistic per degrees of freedom.X-axis represents the number of degrees of freedom in the model, which ranges from 5 to 26. Blue bars were used to mark the number of models with the same degrees of freedom and maximum C-statistic, whose values correspond to the Y-axis on the left side. The red line above the bars was connected by the orange dots showing the maximum C-statistic per degrees of freedom (Y-axis on the right side). For example, there are 51 models with 21 degrees of freedom that have a C-statistic of 0.795.Download FigureModel performance and cross-validationIn the second step, we removed 142 models because simpler models had equivalent performance based on the bootstrap analysis. Five models remained for the final cross-validation step (see Table S1 for statistical models in the supplemental material). Table 2 presents the C-statistics (95% confidence interval) of these five retained models that were evaluated in the complete dataset and by fivefold cross-validation. The model with the best cross-validation performance included age, BMI, male sex, snoring, restless or very restless sleep, BMI2, neck size, neck size2, high depressive symptom, witnessed apneas, age2, and age3, and had an average C-statistic of .76 computed on the test datasets.Table 2 C-statistic of 5 models retained after Bootstrap in the final step of 5-fold cross-validation. C-statistics are provided for the full analytic data set and averaged in the 5-fold cross-validation.Prediction ModelNumber of MeasuresDegrees of FreedomComplete Dataset (C-Statistic and 95% CI)Fivefold Cross-Validation (Average C-statistic) (Testing Datasets)Model 1: Age, BMI, male, snoring450.751 (0.715, 0.787)0.740Model 2: Model 1 + restless or very restless sleep + neck size670.765 (0.730, 0.800)0.752Model 3: Model 2 + age2 + age3690.776 (0.741, 0.810)0.762Model 4: Model 3 + witnessed apneas + BMI2 + high depressive symptoms + neck size28130.784 (0.750, 0.818)0.763Model 5: Model 3 + witnessed apneas + sleepiness + high depressive symptoms + waist size + waist size2 + waist size3 + neck size2 + neck size3 + sleepiness × male10180.793 (0.759, 0.826)0.761C-statistics are provided for the full analytic data set and averaged in the fivefold cross-validation. BMI = body mass index, CI = confidence interval.Comparison of proposed and existing prediction modelsTable 3 provides various performance measures across the existing and the proposed prediction models, computed over JHSS participants. The optimal computed thresholds for the HCHS, NoSAS, and STOP-Bang prediction models that maximized the sum of sensitivity and specificity were all larger than the recommended thresholds, which are ≥4 versus 3 for STOP-Bang score, ≥10 versus 8 for NoSAS score, and ≥0.35 versus 0.12 for HCHS prediction probability. Table 3 shows the frequency and prevalence of positive and accurate predictions and predictive properties under optimal and recommended cutoffs for each prediction method. Under the recommended cutoffs, high sensitivity (0.79–0.96) and low specificity (0.28–0.45) were observed for the STOP-Bang score, NoSAS score, and HCHS prediction probability, resulting in a large proportion of false-positive findings and prediction accuracy less than 60%. Application of population-specific cutoffs improved the prediction accuracy by 10–17% for these 3 methods. Of all the retained models, our model 3 (age, BMI, male sex, snoring, restless or very restless sleep, neck size, age2, and age3) under the optimal cutoff prediction probability (≥0.44) had the best prediction accuracy of 74% because of its high specificity (0.81). Our best prediction model 4 (age, BMI, male sex, snoring, restless or very restless sleep, BMI2, neck size, neck size2, high depressive symptom, witnessed apneas, age2, and age3) had the second-best prediction accuracy of 72%, with equally acceptable sensitivity and specificity (0.72).Table 3 Predictive properties by model and cutoff.MethodC-Statistic (95% CI)CutoffsHigh Risk (%)Accuracy (%)Sensitivity (95% CI)Specificity (95% CI)Youden’s IndexSTOP-Bang score (range: 0–8)0.686 (0.647, 0.726)Predefined (score ≥ 3)64%56%0.79 (0.72, 0.84)0.44 (0.35, 0.49).23Optimal (score ≥ 4)37%66%0.56 (0.45, 0.61)0.74 (0.63, 0.78).30NoSAS score (range: 0–17)0.697 (0.659, 0.735)Predefined (score ≥ 8)65%58%0.82 (0.74, 0.86)0.45 (0.35, 0.50).27Optimal (score ≥ 10)38%66%0.57 (0.48, 0.64)0.73 (0.64, 0.78).30HCHS prediction model (range: 0.018–0.990)0.745 (0.709, 0.782)Predefined (probability ≥ .12)80%53%0.96 (0.90, 0.98)0.28 (0.17, 0.32).24Optimal (probability ≥ .35)35%70%0.58 (0.47, 0.64)0.79 (0.69, 0.83).37Model 10.751 (0.715, 0.787)Optimal (probability ≥ .46)33%72%0.56 (0.46, 0.62)0.81 (0.70, 0.85).37Model 20.765 (0.730, 0.800)Optimal (probability ≥ .42)39%72%0.64 (0.55, 0.70)0.76 (0.66, 0.81).40Model 30.776 (0.741, 0.810)Optimal (probability ≥ .44)36%74%0.64 (0.52, 0.69)0.81 (0.68, 0.84).45Model 40.784 (0.750, 0.818)Optimal (probability ≥ .38)45%72%0.72 (0.61, 0.77)0.72 (0.60, 0.77).44Model 50.793 (0.759, 0.826)Optimal (probability ≥ .35)47%72%0.76 (0.66, 0.81)0.70 (0.57, 0.74).46The true prevalence of moderate or sleep apnea in the complete dataset was 38%. CI = confidence interval, HCHS = Hispanic Community Health Study, NoSAS = Neck, Obesity, Snoring, Age, Sex.In secondary analyses, we repeated the analyses with 4% REI. There were fewer candidate models (Figure S1), with 4 final models (Table S2). Model 3, which included age, BMI, male sex, snoring, restless or very restless sleep, neck size, witnessed apneas, depressive symptoms and average sleep duration had the best accuracy (74%) with the highest specificity (0.78) (Table S3). This model included three additional variables (eg, witnessed apneas, depressive symptoms, sleep duration) than the most accurate (74%) model for 3% REI. Our models for 4% REI, similar to 3% REI, had better predictive properties than the commonly used prediction models.DISCUSSIONIn a large community sample of African Americans with a high burden of moderate or severe OSA (38%), we develope" @default.
• W3014852912 created "2020-04-10" @default.
• W3014852912 creator A5001094123 @default.
• W3014852912 creator A5031305852 @default.
• W3014852912 creator A5050330450 @default.
• W3014852912 creator A5068555852 @default.
• W3014852912 creator A5078364103 @default.
• W3014852912 date "2020-07-15" @default.
• W3014852912 modified "2023-10-12" @default.
• W3014852912 title "A sleep apnea prediction model developed for African Americans: the Jackson Heart Sleep Study" @default.
• W3014852912 cites W1950718525 @default.
• W3014852912 cites W1965032841 @default.
• W3014852912 cites W1966544093 @default.
• W3014852912 cites W1989041864 @default.
• W3014852912 cites W1995016231 @default.
• W3014852912 cites W2016341164 @default.
• W3014852912 cites W2017334217 @default.
• W3014852912 cites W2026191693 @default.
• W3014852912 cites W2040310135 @default.
• W3014852912 cites W2080382568 @default.
• W3014852912 cites W2086249784 @default.
• W3014852912 cites W2117834225 @default.
• W3014852912 cites W2119317330 @default.
• W3014852912 cites W2124052130 @default.
• W3014852912 cites W2139865439 @default.
• W3014852912 cites W2167365741 @default.
• W3014852912 cites W2171877112 @default.
• W3014852912 cites W2205419122 @default.
• W3014852912 cites W2281963123 @default.
• W3014852912 cites W2420887096 @default.
• W3014852912 cites W2891424765 @default.
• W3014852912 doi "https://doi.org/10.5664/jcsm.8452" @default.
• W3014852912 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/7954057" @default.
• W3014852912 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32248895" @default.
• W3014852912 hasPublicationYear "2020" @default.
• W3014852912 type Work @default.
• W3014852912 sameAs 3014852912 @default.
• W3014852912 citedByCount "7" @default.
• W3014852912 countsByYear W30148529122021 @default.
• W3014852912 countsByYear W30148529122022 @default.
• W3014852912 countsByYear W30148529122023 @default.
• W3014852912 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3014852912 hasAuthorship W3014852912A5001094123 @default.
• W3014852912 hasAuthorship W3014852912A5031305852 @default.
• W3014852912 hasAuthorship W3014852912A5050330450 @default.
• W3014852912 hasAuthorship W3014852912A5068555852 @default.
• W3014852912 hasAuthorship W3014852912A5078364103 @default.
• W3014852912 hasBestOaLocation W30148529121 @default.
• W3014852912 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W3014852912 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W3014852912 hasConcept C164705383 @default.
• W3014852912 hasConcept C2775841894 @default.
• W3014852912 hasConcept C2776006263 @default.
• W3014852912 hasConcept C2777935920 @default.
• W3014852912 hasConcept C2778205975 @default.
• W3014852912 hasConcept C2780168309 @default.
• W3014852912 hasConcept C2781326671 @default.
• W3014852912 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W3014852912 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3014852912 hasConceptScore W3014852912C111919701 @default.
• W3014852912 hasConceptScore W3014852912C126322002 @default.
• W3014852912 hasConceptScore W3014852912C164705383 @default.
• W3014852912 hasConceptScore W3014852912C2775841894 @default.
• W3014852912 hasConceptScore W3014852912C2776006263 @default.
• W3014852912 hasConceptScore W3014852912C2777935920 @default.
• W3014852912 hasConceptScore W3014852912C2778205975 @default.
• W3014852912 hasConceptScore W3014852912C2780168309 @default.
• W3014852912 hasConceptScore W3014852912C2781326671 @default.
• W3014852912 hasConceptScore W3014852912C41008148 @default.
• W3014852912 hasConceptScore W3014852912C71924100 @default.
• W3014852912 hasIssue "7" @default.
• W3014852912 hasLocation W30148529121 @default.
• W3014852912 hasLocation W30148529122 @default.
• W3014852912 hasOpenAccess W3014852912 @default.
• W3014852912 hasPrimaryLocation W30148529121 @default.
• W3014852912 hasRelatedWork W2016370421 @default.
• W3014852912 hasRelatedWork W2080992334 @default.
• W3014852912 hasRelatedWork W2092213755 @default.
• W3014852912 hasRelatedWork W2186303850 @default.
• W3014852912 hasRelatedWork W3010626804 @default.
• W3014852912 hasRelatedWork W3157087993 @default.
• W3014852912 hasRelatedWork W4200607786 @default.
• W3014852912 hasRelatedWork W4235249510 @default.
• W3014852912 hasRelatedWork W4310009901 @default.
• W3014852912 hasRelatedWork W4381597394 @default.
• W3014852912 hasVolume "16" @default.
• W3014852912 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3014852912 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3014852912 magId "3014852912" @default.
• W3014852912 workType "article" @default.