Upper airway findings in children with Down syndrome on sleep nasopharyngoscopy: case-control study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify the pattern of upper airway endoscopic findings in Down syndrome (DS) children with sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) spectrum. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective case-control study in a tertiary pediatric centre. METHODS: DS children presenting with persistent snoring or SDB who underwent sleep nasopharyngoscopy (SNP) were identified from a prospectively kept surgical database. All SNPs were performed using a uniform intravenous sedation technique. Controls with persistent snoring or SDB from the same database were identified and pair-matched for age, gender, and body mass index (BMI) percentiles. The video recordings of the SNP for all subjects were reviewed. A comparison of the proportions of obstruction (O), mixed (M), and collapse (C) findings in each group was performed. RESULTS: Over a period of 4.5 years, 23 consecutive DS children were identified (7 girls, 16 boys; mean age 7.09 ± 4.37 years). They were matched with 23 controls (mean age 7.6 ± 4.14 years). The DS group exhibited significantly more pharyngeal collapses than the controls (O:C:M, 2:6:15 and 12:0:10, respectively; p < .005). Lingual collapses were also noted more in DS children (11 vs 4), and a more significant number of collapses were seen (p < .004). Whereas nearly equal numbers exhibited tonsillar obstruction, adenoidal obstruction was significantly less in DS children (p < .05). CONCLUSION: Generalized pharyngeal collapse dominates in DS children who present with SDB and is independent of age, gender, and BMI. Adenoidal hypertrophy causing obstruction is much less encountered than in controls.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".