Turbinate Size and Sleep‐Related Breathing Disorders: Is There a Correlation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The tail of the turbinates is a site of nasal obstruction that may be associated with sleep related breathing disorder (SBD). We describe a technique, the trans‐oral nasopharyngoscopy (TON), to evaluate turbinate size and determine if an association exists between turbinate size and the various parameters measured in SBD. Method Thirty‐six patients with SBD completed an Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) and a Quebec Sleep Questionnaire (QSQ). They underwent a nasal examination, allergy skin tests, full night polysomnography, and TON. Turbinate size was divided into two groups: I) turbinate obstructing 1/2. Results Sixteen patients were grade I and 20 patients were grade II. Turbinate size at the choana did not show any statistical significant association with nasal congestion, allergies, ESS and QSQ scores. Among the PSG parameters analyzed, no association was found with the apnea‐hypopnea index (AHI), but the size of the turbinate showed a positive correlation with respiratory event related arousals (RERA; P =. 03). Total sleep time spent snoring showed a weak association with turbinate size. Conclusion TON is a simple technique allowing the evaluation of the size of the turbinates. Turbinate size was associated with RERA and total sleep time spent snoring, but not with AHI.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".