Quality of life of patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome treated with an intraoral mandibular repositioner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) is a very important and prevalent disease, which is associated with a poor quality of life in many patients. Treatments for OSAS include surgery, Continuous Positive Air way Pressure, and an intraoral mandibular repositioner (IOMR), but the tendency of sleep centers is to emphasize the apnea index, neglecting quality of life as treatment outcome. OBJECTIVE: To verify to what extent treatment with an IOMR improves the OSAS patient's quality of life. METHOD: Eleven male patients aged 34 to 63 years (mean=49) with mild to moderate OSAS were evaluated using the Calgary SAQLI questionnaire applied before and four weeks after treatment with an IOMR. The mandibular repositioners were manufactured individually for each patient with acrylic polymer and equipped with a retentive device to maintain the mandible in a forward position during sleep. RESULTS: Excellent improvement in the quality of life was observed in five patients (45.5%) and excellent improvement in symptoms in 10 (90.9%). CONCLUSION: The systematic use of the IOMR indicates a clear improvement in the global quality of life as well as in the symptoms of patients with OSAS.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".