Predicting epiglottic collapse in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is characterised by pharyngeal obstruction occurring at different sites. Endoscopic studies reveal that epiglottic collapse renders patients at higher risk of failed oral appliance therapy or accentuated collapse on continuous positive airway pressure. Diagnosing epiglottic collapse currently requires invasive studies (imaging and endoscopy). As an alternative, we propose that epiglottic collapse can be detected from the distinct airflow patterns it produces during sleep.23 OSA patients underwent natural sleep endoscopy. 1232 breaths were scored as epiglottic/nonepiglottic collapse. Several flow characteristics were determined from the flow signal (recorded simultaneously with endoscopy) and used to build a predictive model to distinguish epiglottic from nonepiglottic collapse. Additionally, 10 OSA patients were studied to validate the pneumotachograph flow features using nasal pressure signals.Epiglottic collapse was characterised by a rapid fall(s) in the inspiratory flow, more variable inspiratory and expiratory flow and reduced tidal volume. The cross-validated accuracy was 84%. Predictive features obtained from pneumotachograph flow and nasal pressure were strongly correlated.This study demonstrates that epiglottic collapse can be identified from the airflow signal measured during a sleep study. This method may enable clinicians to use clinically collected data to characterise underlying physiology and improve treatment decisions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".