MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966172781 · doi:10.2310/7070.2001.19696

Radiofrequency Tissue Reduction of the Palate in Patients with Moderate Sleep-Disordered Breathing

2001· article· en· W1966172781 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Deron J. Brown, Paul Kerr, Meir H. Kryger

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Otolaryngology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSoft palateEpworth Sleepiness ScaleHypopneaAnesthesiaBreathingPolysomnographyProspective cohort studyApneaObstructive sleep apneaSleep apneaSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Radiofrequency volumetric reduction of the palate has been advocated as a treatment for mild sleep-disordered breathing (SDB). Our study examines the efficacy of this procedure on patients with mostly moderate SDB. DESIGN: Prospective, nonrandomized, consecutive series. SETTING: St. Boniface Hospital, Sleep Disorders Centre, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg. METHOD: Twelve patients with polysomnographically proven moderate SDB were given a total of 2400 to 3600 joules of radiofrequency energy to their soft palate over two to three treatments. Follow-up examined the effect of treatment on subjective and objective parameters including the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, loudness of snoring, Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI), and Arousal Index. RESULTS: Two of 12 patients had a good objective response to treatment in that their AHI dropped by more than 50% and to a value of less than 20. However, none of the patients claimed to have a satisfactory subjective response. There was a slight reduction in the mean AHI from 31.2+/-5.1 to 25.3+/-4.2 (p < .05), but no clinically significant difference was found between pre- and post-treatment groups with respect to other sleep parameters. There was no improvement in daytime sleepiness or snoring. CONCLUSIONS: Radiofrequency tissue ablation of redundant soft palate tissues lacks clinical efficacy in patients with moderate SDB.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of OtolaryngologySame topicObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchFrench-language works237,207