Laryngeal Inflammation Assessed using the Reflux Finding Score in Obstructive Sleep Apnea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relationships between laryngeal inflammation assessed using the Reflux Finding Score (RFS), laryngeal sensory function, and apnea severity in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). METHODS: Endoscopic sensory testing (EST) was performed with subsequent blinded scoring from video of RFS. An RFS>7 was indicative of increased inflammatory change. RESULTS: Of 34 patients evaluated, 29 had OSA (apnea-hypopnea index [AHI]>or=15 events/h) at polysomnography. Increased inflammation was present in 26/29 (90%), with changes suggestive of laryngopharyngeal reflux. There were significant correlations between: inflammation and OSA severity (eg, RFS vs AHI, r=0.57, P<0.001); inflammation and laryngeal sensory impairment (EST detection threshold and pressure required to elicit the laryngeal adductor reflex, LAR); and the degree of sensory impairment and OSA severity. CONCLUSIONS: Laryngeal inflammation is prevalent among OSA patients and correlates with laryngeal sensory dysfunction, attenuation of the LAR, and apnea severity. EBM RATING: C-4.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".