ArticleFrontiers in sleep2024
Comparison of machine learning approaches for positive airway pressure adherence prediction in a veteran cohort.
Article in Frontiers in sleep, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early prediction of longitudinal treatment adherence in obstructive sleep apnea using machine learning approaches.BioData mining · 2026Article
- Development and Validation of an Explainable Machine Learning Model for Identifying Hypertension Status in Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2026Article
- Feasibility and acceptability of Nenne Navi-AI: family-tailored intervention to improve sleep in young Japanese children.Frontiers in 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Adherence to positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy for sleep apnea is suboptimal, particularly in the veteran population. Accurately identifying those best suited for other therapy or additional interventions may improve adherence. We evaluated various machine learning algorithms to predict 90-day adherence. Methods: The cohort of VA Northeast Ohio Health Care system patients who were issued a PAP machine (January 1, 2010-June 30, 2015) had demographics, comorbidities, and medications at the time of polysomnography obtained from the electronic health record. The data were split 60:20:20 into training, calibration, and validation data sets, with no use of validation data for model development. We constructed models for the first 90-day adherence period (% nights ≥4 h use) using the following algorithms: linear regression, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator, elastic net, ridge regression, gradient boosted machines, support vector machine regression, Bayes-based models, and neural nets. Prediction performance was evaluated in the validation data set using root mean square error (RMSE). Results: The 5,047 participants were 38.3 ± 11.9 years old, and 96.1% male, with 36.8% having coronary artery disease and 52.6% with depression. The median adherence was 36.7% (interquartile range: 0%, 86.7%). The gradient boosted machine was superior to other machine learning techniques (RMSE 37.2). However, the performance was similar and not clinically useful for all models without 30-day data. The 30-day PAP data and using raw diagnoses and medications (vs. grouping by type) improved the RMSE to 24.27. Conclusion: Comparing multiple prediction algorithms using electronic medical record information, we found that none has clinically meaningful performance. Better adherence predictive measures may offer opportunities for personalized tailoring of interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.