false positive update

So, I've been gathering data a few nights and still see little correlation to my questionable 3 hour sleep study results.
I made some observations last night, where I slept 11 hours.
Last night, my SPO2 results only dropped below 88 once for a second, and considerably more events under 90. Using Vasquez (2000) AAA test, I only show one RDI event.
I use the fitbit sleep stages to get awake 13%, REM 24%, Light 47%, Deep 16%

A few posters heckled me to get more IHT, if I don't like the sleep lab results. That would be great if they didn't cost $250 a night. And the sleep lab basically told me, no money back, the results are what they are.

BTW, fitbit average users reports
21% REM
52% light
15% deep

I'd say I"m pretty close to the average. I know some here will mock them, but they are putting a tremendous amount of efforts into deep learning and sleep apnea analysis.
There was a comparison on another post that looked pretty accurate.

All that tells is Fitbit doesn't find sleep apnea any better than you do. Considering 1/4 of the the population probably have some level of sleep apnea, sounds like Fitbit isn't any sounder than you are, maybe Fitbit is in De-Nile too! Jim

At least if you guys are going to heckle, look up the vazquez AAA methodology and explain why it does or does not work.
It shows 98% sensitivity against valid polysomnagraphy testing. I'd take that over a horrid 2 hour sleep at an overnight lab, that I can't repeat.

And that comment that a 1 second below 88% interval is too low. Could you point to a medical source that validates that?

user 232 wrote:BTW, fitbit average users reports
21% REM
52% light
15% deep

I'd say I"m pretty close to the average. I know some here will mock them, but they are putting a tremendous amount of efforts into deep learning and sleep apnea analysis.
There was a comparison on another post that looked pretty accurate.

Soooo...What did you come to this message board for?????

Are you more invested in getting validation that you had a lousy one night lab study, or in getting better?

I am looking for experienced users to share their thoughts and help in validating the results. I appreciate that many are really trying to help.
But I like to have some sound scientific reasoning, other than jeers, like the way to prove the test was not a false positive is by dying.

I had a, IMO, very poor test, with only 1 small cluster of 7 events during the 2 hours, where I finally got sound sleep, and the majority of events occuring during the periods when I was definitely not asleep and
could have been yanking on the nose apparatus and wires, causing false events. Even with all that the numbers were all low (AHI 10).

I also get that I can take more AHT and validate for myself, but I don't wish to spend 250 a night out of pocket for nothing. Hey, I"m still going to get the mask and try it out but I'll be peeved if it turns out to be something else, later on down the road. Again, not coming here to be the whiny complainer, but I do believe there are those here that are trying to help and I respect that. Frustrated about the whole thing.

xxyzx thanks for sharing the references, could you point or cite a specific part of the reference that states, a 1 second interval Sp02 event below 88% is conclusive evidence of OSA. I don't have access to those reference sources.
And that is completely different evidence and methodology than several papers I've already reviewed.

user232 wrote: I had a, IMO, very poor test, with only 1 small cluster of 7 events during the 2 hours, where I finally got sound sleep, and the majority of events occuring during the periods when I was definitely not asleep and

YOu have not convinced anybody that you were awake when those events were scored. In-lab studies know when you are awake and when you are asleep. They do not score events that occur when you are awake. Therefore, you are refusing to accept that you were asleep. You need to have to doctor show you teh results and perhaps the detailed data that proves you were asleep. Most of us here are well aware that our perceptions of sleep/wake are often wrong. For example, I can toss and turn all night and feel like I barely slept. Yet the tv was on, and I couldn't tell you much about any of the programs that played. So, I wasn't awake even thought I felt like I barely slept.

Unless you can prove with data from the sleep study that they scored awake events, then I doubt many people here will agree with you. We are going to trust the lab results since they are designed to know when you are awake or asleep.

user232 wrote:I am looking for experienced users to share their thoughts and help in validating the results. I appreciate that many are really trying to help.

You want forum members to help you, yet you have refused to post a copy of the summary of your sleep study. (You were shown in another thread how a guest can do this.)

You should also post a link to this -

user232 wrote:look up the vazquez AAA methodology

A little cooperation please!

Ranting, by definition, does not include LISTENING.

Looking briefly, the Vazquez paper, it is correlating some O2 desaturation data with AHI. I question both the precision and accuracy of my CMS model 250 F pulse/oximeter. It seems to float about some what, as well as they all vary by which finger you have it on. Perhaps with medical grade equipment, there may be good results, but I would not trust home devices for an evaluation of a condition as far reaching as sleep apnea.

Thanks all,
Everytime I try to post any links or substantial info, it gets rejected.

Not trolling anyone, and while I appreciate your effort, xxxyzx, you've not validated or provided a passage of anything to back up your claim.

TAsmart, I appreciate the feedback and figured it might be that the home pulse oximter was not sufficient, so I asked for alternate user data in another thread. The only thing I can say on that is no one shared data and I noticed the paper(s) and the CMS-50F both claimed similar accuracy (+/-2 %), so figured the results would not differ much. And several other studies on similar oximiters showed almost same conclusions.

I'm happy to share source paper and method. I can't share the link, but one paper is "Automated Analysis of digital oximetery in the diagnosis of sleep apnoea." Juan-Carlos Vasquez 2000
It can easily be found by search. In it they denote several methods commonly used to diagnose apnea, including overnight polysomnography.
They describe an algorithm that can get good RDI (respiratory disturbance index, I believe) measures, in line with overnight tests, using a simple pulse oximiter, and describe several commonly accepted standards, as well as how they ran a common open source algorithm to derive and measure their results. In brief, you can count the number of respiratory desaturation events that contribute to RDI, by looking for and averaging 3 or more consecutive desaturation events, followed by a recovery. Desaturation events are defined as decreasing intervals, any of which are greater or than equal to 4% less than a rolling baseline (described in the paper). They never describe any absolute levels of SpO2 as being an indicator of apnea.
Several follow up papers cooborate their evidence.

The trouble with the paper you cited is that it's from 2000, and things have changed light years since then... look for more up to date research and ignore xxxyz!

Before anyone says the paper is not backed by any evidence, several cohorts or patients where compared against overnight polysomnagraphy results over several studies and showed good correlations AHI measures and OSA conclusions.
I completely agree the overnight test is a much more conclusive test, when run properly. But, when it wasn't run well, has questionable consistency in counts, and I run the above several times, that counters the overnight, it does make me wonder. And if anyone knows overnight AHT that are cheaper than 250 a night, please post. I can't really afford to keep spending and hoping a test comes out well.