Temporal association between sleep apnea–hypopnea and sleep bruxism events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is some evidence suggesting that obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome is concomitant with sleep bruxism. The aim of this study was to investigate the temporal association between sleep apnea-hypopnea events and sleep bruxism events. In an open observational study, data were gathered from 10 male subjects with confirmed obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome and concomitant sleep bruxism. Polysomnography and audio-video recordings were performed for 1 night in a sleep laboratory. Breathing, brain, heart and masticatory muscle activity signals were analysed to quantify sleep and sleep stage duration, and number and temporal distribution of apnea-hypopnea events and sleep bruxism events. Apnea-hypopnea events were collected within a 5-min time window before and after sleep bruxism events, with the sleep bruxism events as the pivotal reference point. Two temporal patterns were analysed: (i) the interval between apnea-hypopnea events termination and sleep bruxism events onset, called T1; and (ii) the interval between sleep bruxism events termination and apnea-hypopnea events onset, called T2. Of the intervals between sleep bruxism events and the nearest apnea-hypopnea event, 80.5% were scored within 5 min. Most intervals were distributed within a period of <30 s, with peak at 0-10 s. The T1 interval had a mean length of 33.4 s and was significantly shorter than the T2 interval (64.0 s; P < 0.05). Significantly more sleep bruxism events were scored in association with the T1 than the T2 pattern (P < 0.05). Thus, in patients with concomitant obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome and sleep bruxism, most sleep bruxism events occurred after sleep apnea-hypopnea events, suggesting that sleep bruxism events occurring close to sleep apnea-hypopnea events is a secondary form of sleep bruxism.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".