Remotely Controlled Mandibular Positioner Predicts Efficacy of Oral Appliances in Sleep Apnea
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it