The early postoperative course of surgical sleep apnea patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Recent guidelines from the American Society of Anesthesiologists recommended postoperative monitoring for most patients undergoing surgery for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). These guidelines, however, are largely based on retrospective literature and expert opinion. The appropriate level of postoperative monitoring remains controversial. Our objective was to prospectively document the early postoperative course of patients undergoing OSA surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: One hundred twenty-one patients (age 43.9 + or - 13.5 years, 79.8% male) with sleep-study proven OSA (apnea-hypopnea index 31.9 + or - 22.7) who were undergoing surgery for OSA at our tertiary care center were recruited from 2007 to 2009. Outcome measures were: 1) incidence of respiratory complications requiring nursing intervention, 2) level of postoperative blood oxygen saturation divided into three groups: mean oxygen saturation in recovery room (SpO2(recovery)), mean oxygen saturation in step-up unit (SpO2(step-up)), and lowest oxygen saturation over the 24 hour period (SpO2(minimum)). These results were then compared to the benchmark literature. RESULTS: The overall incidence of nursing intervention in response to a respiratory complication (3.4%) was significantly less than expected (P < .002). Mean SpO2(recovery) was 92.9 + or - 3.2%, SpO2(step-up) was 95.9 + or - 1.6%, and SpO2(minimum) was 92.8 + or - 3.1%. No variables were identified as being predictive of any of the outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of respiratory events requiring intervention in the early postoperative course of OSA patients was low (3.4%). Routine postoperative inpatient monitoring may not be required in many cases.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".