Assessment of tongue mechanical properties using different contraction tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inadequate upper airway (UA) dilator muscle function may play an important role in the pathophysiology of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). To date, tongue mechanical properties have been assessed mainly using protrusion protocol with conflicting results. Performance during elevation tasks among patients with OSA remains unknown. This study aimed at assessing tongue muscle strength, strength stability, endurance time, fatigue indices, and total muscle work, using elevation and protrusion tasks with repetitive isometric fatiguing contractions in 12 normal plus mild, 17 moderate, and 11 severe patients with OSA, and to assess the influence of body mass index (BMI) and age. Endurance time was longer in protrusion than elevation task ( P = 0.01). In both tasks, endurance time was negatively correlated with baseline value of strength coefficient of variation ( P < 0.01). Compared with other groups, patients with moderate OSA had the lowest total muscle work for protrusion ( P = 0.01) and shortest endurance time ( P = 0.04), regardless of the type of task. Additionally, in patients with moderate-severe OSA, the total muscle work for both tasks was lower in nonobese compared with obese ( P < 0.05). Total muscle work for protrusion was positively correlated with apnea hypopnea index (AHI) in obese subjects ( P < 0.01). Endurance time was shorter ( P < 0.01) and recovery time longer ( P = 0.02) in the old compared with young subjects. In conclusion, the tongue is more prone to fatigue during the elevation task and in patients with moderate OSA. Obesity appeared to prevent alteration of tongue mechanical properties in patients with OSA. Baseline strength stability and endurance were related, illustrating the role of central neuromuscular output in tongue resistance to fatigue. NEW & NOTEWORTHY To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess and compare tongue function using both elevation and protrusion tasks with repetitive isometric fatiguing contractions in subjects with different OSA status. Tongue mechanical performance seemed to differ between protrusion and elevation tasks and depend on the severity of 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".