<scp>T</scp>ran<scp>Q</scp>uill sling snoreplasty for snoring: A single‐arm pilot study for safety and effectiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Determine safety and efficacy of the TranQuill Sling Snoreplasty (TSS) (Surgical Specialties Corp., Vancouver, BC, Canada) for the treatment of snoring in adults with benign snoring or mild obstructive sleep apnea. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, unblinded, single-center pilot study. METHODS: From February 2014 to July 2014, 20 adult patients with chronic, disruptive snoring assessed by bed partner were recruited to undergo TSS. Subjects with apnea hypopnea index < 15, minimum oxygen saturation > 85%, and body mass index (BMI) < 32 were included. Outcomes were assessed comparing the results of quality-of-life questionnaires, bed partner-assessed snoring, pain visual analog scales, WatchPAT (Itamar Medical Ltd, Caesarea Ind. Park, Israel) home sleep studies, and flexible endoscopy at baseline and 90-day follow-up. RESULTS: Thirteen males and seven females were enrolled. Average age was 49.1 (range 31-67) and BMI of 25.8 ± 2.66. TranQuill Sling Snoreplasty significantly reduced snoring symptom scores from 8.70 ± 4.27 to 6.42 ± 4.14, P = 0.012. Snoring visual analog scores demonstrated reduction of 17.8 mm (59.4 mm ± 22.1 to 41.6 mm ± 29.2), P = 0.0184. Thirty-five percent (7/20) of subjects reported complications related to the trial, with no serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: TranQuill Sling Snoreplasty is a safe therapy that improves snoring symptoms in most adult subjects with benign snoring or mild sleep apnea. Further study is required to better identify patients likely to respond to the therapy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".