Remotely Controlled Mandibular Positioner Predicts Efficacy of Oral Appliances in Sleep Apnea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anterior mandibular positioners (AMPs) have become increasingly popular as alternatives to continuous positive airway pressure for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea. However, widespread acceptance of AMP is limited by an efficacy rate of 50-80% and an inability to predict which patients will respond to therapy. We evaluated 23 patients with obstructive sleep apnea (respiratory disturbance index [RDI] >/= 15 h(-1)) with a remotely controlled mandibular positioner (RCMP), a temporary oral appliance that can advance or retract the mandible in a process analogous to changing the mask pressure during a continuous positive airway pressure titration study. We hypothesized that the elimination of respiratory events and significant nocturnal oxygen desaturation during an RCMP overnight study would predict AMP efficacy, as defined by an absolute reduction in RDI to less than 15 h(-1), a relative reduction in RDI of more than 30% from baseline, and a subjective improvement in symptoms. AMP compliance was 82%, and therapeutic efficacy was 53%. Among compliant patients, the positive and negative predictive value of an RCMP study in predicting AMP treatment success was 90% and 89%, respectively. An overnight RCMP study is highly predictive of AMP response.
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 | 0.000 | 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".