Treatment of obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome with radiofrequency volumetric tissue reduction collaborating upper-airway procedure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the efficacy and value of radiofrequency volumetric tissue reduction(RFVTR) in treatment of obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome(OSAHS).Method According to the preoperative diagnosis of obstructive level,86 patients with OSAHS were treated by RFVTR.A all night polysomnography(PSG) examination was performed before and six months after operation for all the patients.Meanwhile the apnea hypopnea index(AHI),lowest arterial oxygen saturation(LSaO2) and the Epworth sleepiness scale(ESS),Stanford sleepiness scale(SSS),and the Calgary sleep apnea quality of life index(SAQLI) were assessed.The final efficacy was then evaluated.Results All the operative procedures were carried out nicely.The comprehensive efficacy in the 86 patients was then assessed.The outcomes were as follows: the recovery rate was 34.9%,the excellent rate was 41.9%,and the effective rate was 18.6%,making a total effective rate of 95.3%.After RFVTR,the AHI was decreased from 44.8±22.6 to 30.5±21.6;the LSaO2 was increased from 72.5±9.5 to 76.7±8.7;the ESS was decreased from 15.3±4.4 to 11.6±4.1,the SSS was decreased from 6.1±1.6 to 5.2±1.7 and the SAQLI increased from 3.9±1.1 to 4.7±1.2.After the operation of RFVTR,the degree of lethargy in daytime,the level of snoring and the quality of life of patients were improved obviously(P0.05).All the improvement mentioned above was significant(P0.05).Conclusion Being an effective treatment for OSAHS,RFVTR is a simple,safe,repeatable and acceptable surgical procedure,which may admirably improve the life quality of the OSAHS sufferers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".