Questions for Respironics regarding their APAPs.

Bob... wrote:This is representative of my data and as you can see it pretty much matches Bill's to a T.

Hey Bob,

I almost hate to start another issue here but how in the world did you get your APAP maximum allowed pressure setting to be lower than the actual recorded pressure values? (Just wondering if this could be another design flaw? . . . NO, tell me I'm wrong, Bob. Tell me that you deliberately massaged the data. PLEASE!)

Regards,
Bill

-SWS wrote:Looking at those charts I'd be most inclined to initially suspect data reporting error also. However, I also think it's entirely feasible that the algorithm might use probability to decide whether to issue a "settling period". I see absolutely no reason why a "settling period" might not be either issued or suspended (for either "beginning-session" or "mid-session") based solely on probability of wakefulness. Technically feasible from my own view. Very much so.

And yes, I too think Titrator answered Ric's question perfectly.

I can't see any useful reason to stop recording the data. From a diagnostic point of view it does more harm than good if the logic is to let the machine settle.

Also with some machines having programmable settling periods that can be quite long, it still makes much more sense to keep recording what is happening rather than introduce 'blind' gaps.

It is of interest that this is just happening on 1 model of machine. I must admit I never noticed it on my Remstar AUTO (must go back & take a peek if I can just figure how to reload my exported data).

Possibly it applies to models at a particular software level ?.

It would be interesting to see how many other people noticed the gap & what software levels their machines are at.

Cheers

DSM

DSM wrote:I can't see any useful reason to stop recording the data. From a diagnostic point of view it does more harm than good if the logic is to let the machine settle.

I'm inclined to agree with that, DSM. I'd probably also lean toward suspecting a bug here as well. However, it's not such a shabby idea to at least go through the analytical excercise of considering why this might not be a bug. And it's not such a shabby idea to consider the possibility that there might be something we have simply overlooked, or even mitigating design circumstances we are just not privvy to. Those have been very good analytical exercises to me throughout the years. .

NightHawkeye wrote:I am amazed that this small glitch has attracted so many folks to defend the algorithm so profoundly.

I see quite a few people trying to analyze the problem, Bill. I also see varying degrees of personal preference regarding when to draw a conclusion versus analytically discussing possible alternatives. I think it's nice to very respectfully compare contrasting ideas toward making discoveries.

I'm also anxious to hear Respironics' official explanation.

NightHawkeye wrote:

Bob... wrote:This is representative of my data and as you can see it pretty much matches Bill's to a T.

Hey Bob,

I almost hate to start another issue here but how in the world did you get your APAP maximum allowed pressure setting to be lower than the actual recorded pressure values? (Just wondering if this could be another design flaw? . . . NO, tell me I'm wrong, Bob. Tell me that you deliberately massaged the data. PLEASE!)

Regards,
Bill

how in the world did you get your APAP maximum allowed pressure setting to be lower than the actual recorded pressure values?

I'd draw the data-reporting "bug conclusion" on that one immediately. I wonder what Respironics' official explanation happens to be---or if there even is one.

-SWS wrote:

how in the world did you get your APAP maximum allowed pressure setting to be lower than the actual recorded pressure values?

I'd draw the "bug conclusion" on that one immediately. I wonder what Respironics' official explanation happens to be---or if there even is one.

Based on the previous discussion:

How does the machine handle - and report - a therapy break thas is shorter then 10 minutes?

How does the machine hadle - and report - a therapy break that is longer than 10 minutes?

The reason I'm asking is that I was wondering if the 2 minutes recording preceding the 10 minutes gap might not be an atrifact of a therapy break that is shorter than 10 minutes.


O.

dsm wrote: SWS,

In reality I just thought it was a machine feature for which we hadn't exhausted all possibilities of an explanation

DSM

(Hope the hol week-end is going well)

For the life of me I couldn't think of any alternative explanations for that one. But if someone else could I'd certainly entertain their sincere thoughts on the subject. I've gleaned quite a few gems throughout the years simply by listening to other peoples' alternative ideas. My credo has always been: to prove our beliefs and conclusions with due diligence, and then to go back and attempt to disprove them with even greater diligence. It's that two- phase "paradigm shift" in problem analysis that immensely helps me to refine my own analyses. Yup... I'm strange bird. Even if it is enough to bring out the sarcasm. .

And speaking of equatorial perspective, I just dropped my pencil. Would you mind throwing it back up? ....er down?
.

ozij wrote:The reason I'm asking is that I was wondering if the 2 minutes recording preceding the 10 minutes gap might not be an atrifact of a therapy break that is shorter than 10 minutes.

Ozij, the length of the break doesn't seem to make any difference that I have discerned. When I'd start the machine up after being OFF all day, sometimes the two/ten data/gap combination would occur, sometimes it wouldn't. Most of my breaks were only a few minutes long, and when I'd turn the machine back ON afterwards, sometimes the two/ten data/gap combination would occur, and sometimes it wouldn't. You can see all of that in the charts I posted (I think).

Regards,
Bill

-SWS wrote: <snip>
Even if it is enough to bring out the sarcasm. .
<snip>

SWS,

That was humour following the prior threads & lord knows we need it at times.
Please accept my sincere appology if you interpreted it any other way

Cheers

DSM

Oh gosh, no, DSM. I took that as great humor! .

Bob...
Do you have your minimum pressure set to 5 and your maximum pressure set to 6?

Bob... wrote:

Take a very very close look at where the min/max lines start & end compared to the nights levels.

(shows up even clearer if you use a graphics pgm to look at the image)

Methinks 'Bob' was possibly someone having their fun (but these days, who knows

#2 - also look at the night data baseline & compare it to how Bill's data was displayed. Yet another clue.

#3 - On further reflection, I am sure that the 'Bob' data is bogus. Hmmm, maybe not so funny ?

DSM

dsm wrote:Take a very very close look at where the min/max lines start & end compared to the nights levels.

(shows up even clearer if you use a graphics pgm to look at the image)

Methinks 'Bob' was possibly someone having their fun (but these days, who knows

#2 - also look at the night data baseline & compare it to how Bill's data was displayed. Yet another clue.

#3 - On further reflection, I am sure that the 'Bob' data is bogus. Hmmm, maybe not so funny ?

DSM

Thanks for clearing that up dsm. I fell for that one: hook, line and sinker. I agree. Not so funny. Just distracts from the real discussion and the real data.

Actually, I have seen that exact graphical reporting error on another person's charts before. Now I can't remember if I saw it on someone's Silver Lining 3 charts or someone's Encore Pro charts. Looking at the above graph I simply thought to myself, "Oh, there it is again."

It could be a spoof, and it could be real in my own way of thinking. But then again, that was my take on the universe at large...
.