The Asian Paediatric Pulmonology Society (APPS) position statement on childhood obstructive sleep apnea syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With recognition of the importance of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) in children, practice guidelines have been developed for the management of OSAS in the USA and Europe. A panel of experts in pediatric OSAS in Asia were appointed by the Asian Paediatric Pulmonology Society (APPS) to prepare a position statement for management of childhood OSAS in Asia. The purpose of this statement is to provide a reference standard in the diagnosis and management of childhood OSAS for doctors working in Asia. The expert panel determined the scope of this statement. Focused literature search related to the key topics was conducted by panel members. The final content of this statement was agreed on by all panel members and approved by the council of APPS. The current statement covered diagnostic approach, diagnostic criteria, management algorithm, drug-induced sleep endoscopy, medical treatment including medications and positive pressure ventilation, surgical treatment including adenotonsillectomy, orthodontic treatment, and orofacial myofunctional therapy (OMT). Diagnostic criteria of childhood OSAS from 1 year to 18 years were presented that include both clinical (criteria A) and polysomnography findings (criteria B) in the diagnosis of childhood OSAS. The use of nocturnal pulse oximetry as a screening tool was suggested using the McGill oximetry score. Management of OSAS with medical treatment, tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy (TandA), positive airway pressure, orthodontic devices, nasal valves, and OMT were reviewed. Management of persistent OSAS after TandA was addressed, and the importance of weight control was emphasized. The position statement provides a guideline to the management of childhood OSAS in Asia.
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 | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
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".