Effect of a titration polysomnogram on treatment success with a mandibular repositioning appliance.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Mandibular repositioning appliance (MRA) therapy is a treatment option for patients with mild to moderate sleep apnea and for patients who do not tolerate continuous positive airway pressure. Titration of MRAs consists of sequential mandibular advancement guided by symptom improvement. The goal of the study was to determine if patients with an elevated apnea hypopnea index (AHI), despite the use of a subjectively optimized MRA, could achieve better results with additional titration during polysomnography (PSG). METHODS: Patients were enrolled if they had an AHI > or = 15/h and were referred for MRA therapy. The MRAwas advanced until symptoms improved. During the PSG, the technologist monitored the patient's sleep and increased mandibular protrusion until the AHI was improved. RESULTS: There was a significant improvement in AHI, minimum oxygen saturation, and total sleep time with the MRA before further advancement. At the final PSG, 65.2% of patients had an AHI < or = 10 associated with at least a 50% reduction in AHI. The incomplete responders had their appliance further titrated, and this improved the results of MRA therapy by 30.4% to a total success rate of 95.6%. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that it is possible to improve the results of MRA therapy by further advancing the appliance during a titration PSG in patients with an incomplete response. The titration night improved the results of the usual clinical advancement of the MRA with substantially more patients achieving a successful outcome.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".