The Rematee Bumper Belt(®) positional therapy device for snoring and obstructive sleep apnea: Positional effectiveness in healthy subjects.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study was designed to investigate body position changes resulting from wearing a Rematee Bumper Belt (Rematee, Canada) during sleep. The majority of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) patients will experience up to two times as many apneas and hypopneas while supine relative to lateral or prone body positions during sleep. It has been suggested that a positional therapy device could reduce the number of apneas and hypopneas in such patients. The present study was conducted to determine whether the Rematee Bumper Belt positional therapy device could prevent healthy subjects from sleeping in the supine position. Test subjects wore the belt for one to two nights. Each belt was equipped with an accelerometer that was used to measure the orientation of the belt relative to the horizontal plane. The results suggest that the belt creates an exclusion zone approximately 80° wide centred near the supine orientation, where subjects are effectively prevented to enter. Results of the present preliminary study suggests that the Rematee Bumper Belt positional therapy device is effective at limiting healthy subjects from sleeping in a supine position. The device appears to be most effective between 150° and 230°. A device with this capability may provide an inexpensive and potentially effective alternative treatment option for patients with OSA. This device has the capacity for reducing snoring and the apnea-hypopnea index in individuals with positional OSA.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".