Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of upper airway muscles during sleep in obstructive sleep apnea patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested the hypothesis that stimulating the genioglossus by repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) during the ascendant portion of the inspiratory flow of airflow-limited breaths would sustain the recruitment of upper airway dilator muscles over time and improve airway dynamics without arousing obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) patients. In a cross-sectional design, nine OSA patients underwent a rTMS trial during stable non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep. Submental muscle motor threshold (SUB) and motor-evoked potential were evaluated during wakefulness and sleep. During NREM sleep, maximal inspiratory flow, inspiratory volume, inspiratory time, shifts of electroencephalogram frequency, and pulse rate variability were assessed under three different stimulation paradigms completed at 1.2 sleep SUB stimulation output: 1) 5Hz-08 (stimulation frequency: 5 Hz; duration of train stimulation: 0.8 s); 2) 25Hz-02 (stimulation frequency: 25 Hz; duration of train stimulation: 0.2 s); and 3) 25Hz-04 (stimulation frequency: 25 Hz; duration of train stimulation: 0.4 s). SUB increased during NREM sleep (wakefulness: 23.8 ± 6.1%; NREM: 26.8 ± 5.2%; = 0.001). Two distinct airflow patterns were observed in response to rTMS: with and without initial airflow drops, without other airflow variables change regardless the stimulation paradigm applied. Finally, rTMS-induced cortical and/or autonomic arousal were observed in 36, 26, and 35% of all delivered rTMS trains during 5Hz-08, 25Hz-02, and 25Hz-04 stimulation paradigms, respectively. In conclusion, rTMS does not provide any airflow improvement of flow-limited breaths as seen with nonrepetitive TMS of upper airway dilator muscles. However, rTMS trains were free of arousals in the majority of cases.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".