0508 Age-Related Disparities in Sleep Apnea Diagnosis: Implications of 4% vs. 3% Hypopnea Scoring Criteria

Farnaz Abbasimoradi,Raffaele Ferri,Maria P Mogavero,Melissa Palomino,Lourdes DelRosso

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/sleep/zsae067.0508

IF: 6.313

2024-04-20

SLEEP

Abstract:Abstract Introduction The distinction between mild, moderate, and severe apnea is crucial, as it classifies patients into different categories of modifiable risk factors. In hypopnea scoring, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services use the 4% criterion, differing from American Academy of Sleep Medicine 's 3%, affecting AHI measurement and the assessment of apnea severity. This study examines age-related differences in the application of these two criteria leading to different apnea severity diagnosis and to potential under-treatment, especially in the elderly. Methods An FDA-cleared home sleep test (SleepImage Ring 2.3.0) was utilized with clinical diagnosis involving a comprehensive review by a Board-Certified Sleep Medicine Physician. Descriptive statistics and the chi-square test were employed to assess differences in frequencies. The Bland-Altman method was used to evaluate the difference in AHI estimation between the two scoring criteria, calculating the mean difference (bias) and 95% limits of agreement. Results In total, 1,021 subjects (mean age 53.3±14.7 years) were analyzed. The Bland-Altman plot revealed the average bias was 8.76 (95% CI: 8.46-9.06), with the 3% criterion yielding higher values. In subjects aged 18-30 years, the most significant discordance was for the diagnosis of mild OSA (35.8%), diagnosed as normal by the 4% criterion. Interestingly, this criterion classified 2.5% of subjects as normal who were moderate by the 3% criterion. Similarly, in subjects aged 41-50 years, the greatest discordance was for mild OSA (29.8%), and 24.9% were classified as having moderate OSA by the 3% criterion but mild by the 4% criterion. For subjects aged 51-60 years, the greatest discordance was in subjects classified as having moderate OSA by the 3% criterion but mild by the 4% criterion (29.4%), and the agreement on normality was very low (6.3%). The last two age groups (61-70 and >70 years) showed a pattern of concordance/discordance very similar to that of subjects aged 51-60 years. Conclusion Our study unveils notable disparities in hypopnea scoring criteria (4% vs. 3%). Over 20% of individuals aged 70 and above with OSA may be under-treated using the 4% criterion, emphasizing the necessity for nuanced OSA diagnosis in older individuals to ensure precise care. Support (if any)

neurosciences,clinical neurology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The problem that this paper attempts to solve is to develop a new machine - learning model to predict obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) by using facial images and questionnaires. Specifically, the research aims to improve the prediction accuracy of moderate - to - severe OSA risk by combining 2D facial images and clinical tools such as the STOP - BANG questionnaire.

### Research Background and Problems

1. **Complexity and Diversity of OSA**
- OSA is a complex sleep - related breathing disorder, which is closely related to systemic consequences such as hypertension, stroke, and cardiovascular diseases.
- Although preliminary screening tools such as STOP - BANG or Berlin questionnaires have been developed, these tools still face challenges in capturing the wide spectrum of OSA.

2. **Importance of Craniofacial Abnormalities**
- Craniofacial abnormalities are considered one of the important risk factors for detecting OSA. Traditional screening methods mainly rely on questionnaires and clinical manifestations, ignoring facial structure information.

3. **Limitations of Existing Screening Tools**
- Relying solely on questionnaires is difficult to comprehensively assess the risk of OSA. Especially when identifying patients with moderate - to - severe OSA, more accurate methods are required.

### Research Objectives

The main objectives of this research are:

- **Develop an Efficient Prediction Model**: By combining machine - learning techniques with 2D facial images and questionnaires, construct a model that can more accurately predict the risk of moderate - to - severe OSA.
- **Improve Diagnostic Efficiency**: By introducing facial image data, enhance the ability to identify OSA risk, especially in the early screening stage.
- **Evaluate Model Performance**: Use multiple machine - learning algorithms (such as logistic regression, random forest, support vector machine, and XGBoost), and evaluate the performance of the model and the importance of each feature through cross - validation and SHAP value analysis.

### Method Overview

1. **Data Collection**: STOP - BANG questionnaire responses and facial image data of 348 patients were collected from Dankook University Medical Center.
2. **Data Processing**: The random under - sampling (RUS) method was used to solve the data imbalance problem, and the data were divided into training and test sets.
3. **Model Training and Validation**: Four machine - learning models were used for training, and the optimal parameters were found through leave - one - out cross - validation (LOOCV).
4. **Model Evaluation**: The best model was selected according to the AUROC value in the test set, and the importance of input features was analyzed through SHAP value analysis.

### Conclusions

The research shows that the machine - learning model combining 2D facial images and questionnaires can significantly improve the prediction accuracy of moderate - to - severe OSA risk. In particular, the features extracted from facial images by deep - learning algorithms make important contributions to the risk screening model, ultimately achieving an AUROC value of 94.1%.

### Formula Representation

When describing the performance of machine - learning models, the following formulas are commonly used:

- **AUROC (Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve)**:
\[
\text{AUROC}=\int_{0}^{1}\text{TPR}(FPR)\,dFPR
\]
where \(\text{TPR}\) is the true positive rate, and \(\text{FPR}\) is the false positive rate.

- **Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) Values**:
\[
\phi_{i}=\sum_{S\subseteq N\setminus\{i\}}\frac{|S|!(n - |S|- 1)!}{n!}[f(S\cup\{i\})-f(S)]
\]
where \(f\) is the model prediction function, \(S\) is a feature subset, and \(i\) is