The association between allergic rhinitis and sleep‐disordered breathing in children: a systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this work was to systematically review existing literature on the association between allergic rhinitis (AR) and sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) in children. METHODS: We performed a literature search encompassing the last 25 years in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL. Inclusion criteria included English-language papers containing original human data, number of subjects ≥7, and age <18 years old. Data was systematically collected on study design, patient demographics, clinical characteristics/outcomes, and level-of-evidence. Two investigators independently reviewed all articles. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 433 abstracts, of which 18 articles were included. Twelve (67%) of the 18 articles showed a statistically significant association between AR and SDB. All articles were either case-series or case-control studies. Based on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, the quality of the articles was determined to be fair to good. For characterizing AR, 7 (39%) studies included skin-prick testing and/or in vitro testing. For determining presence of SDB, 7 (39%) of the studies used polysomnographic data, of which 1 study incorporated data from a home polysomnogram. Habitual snoring was the most common form of SDB studied, in 10 (56%) of the articles. Obstructive sleep apnea was studied in 6 (33%) articles. CONCLUSION: Although the majority of the studies included in this review showed a significant association between AR and SDB, all of the studies were evidence level 3b and 4, for an overall grade of B- evidence (Oxford Evidence-Based Medicine Center). Further higher-quality studies should be performed in the future to better evaluate the relationship between AR and SDB in children.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it