Surgical intervention represents a feasible option for patients with mild obstructive sleep apnoea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with mild obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) depict the disease as being detrimental to their health, causing significant symptoms. These patients were found to achieve significant improvements in OSA-related symptoms after surgical intervention. OBJECTIVES: Although the effects of surgical treatment on OSA have been encouraging in many previous studies, little is known about its effects in patients with mild OSA. The aim of our study was to assess the evolution of symptoms experienced by mild OSA patients after surgical intervention. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This was an observational follow-up study in a university hospital in Finland. The change in daytime and night-time symptoms was assessed by a standardized questionnaire before treatment and after a mean follow-up time of 3 years in both operative and control groups in 81 adult patients with mild OSA. RESULTS: At the follow-up, the control group experienced significantly more daytime sleepiness (p<0.001) compared with the operative group. Adjusted odds ratio (OR) for daytime sleepiness was 0.05 (95% CI 0.01-0.25, p<0.001) in operatively treated patients as compared with control patients, with improvement of witnessed apnoeas (p<0.001) and sleep quality (p=0.033). The OR for intensive snoring was 0.06 (95% CI 0.02-0.22) in the operative group as compared with the control group.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".