Effect of treating severe nasal obstruction on the severity of obstructive sleep apnoea
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
An association between mouth breathing during sleep and increased propensity for upper airway collapse is well documented, but the effect of treatment for nasal obstruction on mouth breathing during sleep and simultaneous obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) severity has not been described previously. A randomised single blind placebo- and sham-controlled crossover study of treatment (topical decongestant and external dilator strip) for nasal obstruction was carried out in 10 patients (nine males; mean+/-SEM 46+/-5 yrs) with nasal obstruction and OSA. All patients had normal acoustic pharyngometry. The effect of treatment on nasal resistance, mouth breathing during sleep and OSA severity was quantified. Treatment of nasal obstruction was associated with a dramatic and sustained reduction in nasal resistance and the oral fraction of ventilation during sleep (mean (95% confidence interval) absolute reduction in oral fraction 30% (12-49)). Improvements in sleep architecture were observed during active treatment, and there was a modest reduction in OSA severity (change in apnoea-hypopnoea index 12 (3-22)). In conclusion, treating nasal obstruction reduced mouth breathing during sleep and obstructive sleep apnoea severity, but did not effectively alleviate obstructive sleep apnoea.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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