Upper Airway Sensation in Snoring and Obstructive Sleep Apnea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies indicate that upper airway (UA) sensory receptors play a role in the maintenance of UA patency and contribute to arousal in response to airway occlusion. An impairment of UA sensory function could therefore predispose to UA obstruction during sleep. We hypothesized that UA sensation is impaired in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and that sensation improves after treatment with nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). We measured two-point discrimination (2PD) and vibratory sensation thresholds (VT) in 37 patients with OSA (mean [+/- SE] apnea- hypopnea index [AHI] = 39 +/- 5 events/h), 12 nonapneic snorers (SN), and 15 control subjects (CL). Sensory thresholds were determined in the UA and on the lip and hand as control sites. Both 2PD and VT were similar among the three groups at the lip and hand sites but were significantly reduced in the UA of OSA and SN subjects versus CL (p < 0.05). Values for 2PD and VT in the UA of OSA versus SN were not significantly different. Sensory measures were repeated after 6 mo in 23 OSA patients treated with CPAP as well as in 18 untreated patients. Thresholds for 2PD and VT at control sites remained identical in both groups, as did 2PD for the UA. However, VT in the UA showed a significant improvement in treated (4.4 +/- 0.2 pre-CPAP versus 3.8 +/- 0.2 mm post-CPAP, p < 0.05) but not untreated patients. These findings indicate the presence of a selective impairment in the detection of mechanical stimuli in the UA of patients with OSA and SN, which is partially reversible after treatment with nasal CPAP in patients with OSA.
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) | 0.001 | 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".