Effect of nasal or oral breathing route on upper airway resistance during sleep
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
Healthy subjects with normal nasal resistance breathe almost exclusively through the nose during sleep. This study tested the hypothesis that a mechanical advantage might explain this preponderance of nasal over oral breathing during sleep. A randomised, single-blind, crossover design was used to compare upper airway resistance during sleep in the nasal and oral breathing conditions in 12 (seven male) healthy subjects with normal nasal resistance, aged 30+/-4 (mean+/-SEM) yrs, and with a body mass index of 23+/-1 kg x m2. During wakefulness, upper airway resistance was similar between the oral and nasal breathing routes. However, during sleep (supine, stage two) upper airway resistance was much higher while breathing orally (median 12.4 cmH2O x L(-1) x s(-1), range 4.5-40.2) than nasally (5.2 cmH2O x L(-1) x s(-1), 1.7-10.8). In addition, obstructive (but not central) apnoeas and hypopnoeas were profoundly more frequent when breathing orally (apnoea-hypopnoea index 43+/-6) than nasally (1.5+/-0.5). Upper airway resistance during sleep and the propensity to obstructive sleep apnoea are significantly lower while breathing nasally rather than orally. This mechanical advantage may explain the preponderance of nasal breathing during sleep in normal subjects.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it