The current state of pediatric drug‐induced sleep endoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this investigation was to assess current drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) practice patterns at centers that have published on the technique, to identify areas of agreement, and to identify areas of disagreement that may represent opportunities for improvement and standardization. STUDY DESIGN: Multi-institutional survey. METHODS: A survey was designed in two phases to evaluate preoperative assessment, intraoperative performance, and postoperative management of patients undergoing DISE. The survey was constructed iteratively in consultation with the all of the coauthors, each selected as an expert owing to their previous publication of one or more articles pertaining to pediatric DISE. In the first phase of survey creation, each expert was asked to provide narrative answers to questions pertaining to DISE. These responses served as the basis for a second survey. This second survey was then administered to all pediatric otolaryngologists at each respective institution. RESULTS: Overall, there was a low rate of agreement (33%) among the respondents; however, there was substantial agreement within institution, particularly for the use of anesthetic medications, the use of cine magnetic resonance imaging, and performance of bronchoscopy along with DISE. There was strong agreement among all respondents for performing DISE in a child with severe obstructive sleep apnea following adenotonsillectomy, regardless of comorbidities. CONCLUSION: This multi-institutional survey demonstrated a lack of consensus between experts and multiple opportunities for improvement. In general, there was agreement regarding the workup prior to DISE performance and the endoscopic protocol but disagreement regarding anesthetic protocol and management decisions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. Laryngoscope, 127:266-272, 2017.
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 | 0.014 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".