Sleepyhead data display -- FL column on Statistics tab

What I really need to do is to ask my husband the theoretical physicist what's a better way to summarize the data. Once he's finished grading final exams, we'll have a go at it!

cathyf wrote:Which circles back to my original post -- I'd like to be able to compare flow limitations at different machine settings, and the summary numbers aren't doing the job, and the graphs aren't really the right tool but are all I have...

investigate the csv data export, see if there's something in there for you.

Pugsy wrote:I also don't remember if Sludge said 0.4...but if he did say that...I would probably still primarily look at 95%. If it was below 0.4 or close then the "or below" part of the definition would mean that most of the time things were probably within acceptable limits.

Well, he did say that:

flow limitation is significant ("IMHO" >0.4 in ResMed is significant)

This value was not (at least initially) pulled out of the air. The Rapoport '739 Patent said:

If the flow limitation parameter is between 1 and a predetermined normal reference value, e.g., 0.65-0.8, then the breath is classified as "normal." If the flow limitation parameter is between 0 and a predetermined flow limited reference value, e.g., 0.4, then the breath is classified as "flow limited." If the flow limitation parameter is between the normal and flow limited reference values, then the breath is classified as "intermediate."

This implied that FL less than 0.4 would be attacked.

ResScan would later reverse the reference range (now making 0.6 a potential pivot point), but I just stayed with 0.4, it seemed a good spot to identify "significant".

Pugsy wrote:When the top max number on the graph is 0.5...things are going to look worse than if the top max number is 1.0.

That is basically the point of putting top value at 0.5 (or 0.4). "Significant" becomes more clearly defined.

That said. (and also "IMHO"), this analysis cannot necessarily be extended to the 95% value. What you're really looking for are those FLs that cause problems (RERAs), and that may not be accomplished by trying to boil down FL to 95% <0.4 (AAMOF("IMHO") if you're 95% 0.39, you're a train wreck).

Sludge wrote: Well, he did say that:

Yes he did and I now have that original thread where he said that bookmarked for future use.
I wasn't doubting that he said that...I just didn't remember it being said.