Comparing Pressures Required to Abolish Snoring and Sleep Apnea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Snoring and obstructive sleep apnea share similar pathogenesis and similar response to treatment with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). The purpose of this study was to compare pressures required to abolish apneas (POSA) with pressures required to abolish snoring (PSNOR). DESIGN: Cross-sectional, nonrandomized cohort study. SETTING: Sleep disorders clinic at St Michael's Hospital - a tertiary referral centre and a teaching hospital of the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario. POPULATION STUDIED: Unselected consecutive 441 patients with confirmed sleep apnea who were undergoing a CPAP titration study in the sleep laboratory. INTERVENTIONS: Nocturnal polysomnography using CPAP titration protocol, which required incremental increases in pressure until snoring and apnea were abolished or a maximum pressure of 16 cm H2O was attained. PSNOR and POSA were recorded and compared. RESULTS: Mean (+/- SD) pressures required to abolish snoring and apnea were: PSNOR 8.3+/-2.57 cm H2O and POSA 7.9+/-2.72 cm H2O (P<0.0001). In 75% of patients, the PSNOR was within +/-1 cm H2O of the POSA; in 92%, it was within +/-2 cm H2O; and in 97%, it was within +/-3 cm H2O. CONCLUSIONS: Empirically increasing pressure by 2 cm H2O in patients on CPAP who continue to snore may abolish snoring and apnea without the necessity of another titration study.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".