Use of Oximetry to Determine Need for Adenotonsillectomy for Sleep-Disordered Breathing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the efficacy of adenotonsillectomy (T/A) in children with sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) in a controlled study using oximetry. We hypothesized that children with SDB and abnormal nocturnal oximetry in a community setting will have improved hypoxemia indices after T/A. METHODS: Children with snoring and tonsillar hypertrophy (4-10 years old) who were candidates for T/A were randomly assigned to 2 oximetry sequences (baseline and 3-month follow-up): (1) oximetry immediately before T/A and at the 3-month follow-up, which occurred postoperatively (T/A group); or (2) oximetry at the initial visit and at the end of the usual 3-month waiting period for surgery (control group). Outcomes were (1) proportion of subjects with McGill oximetry score (MOS) >1 at baseline acquiring MOS of 1 at follow-up and (2) proportion of subjects achieving oxygen desaturation (≥3%) of hemoglobin index (ODI3) <2 episodes per hour at follow-up if they had ODI3 ≥3.5 episodes per hour at baseline. RESULTS: < .001). Three children with elevated ODI3 were treated to prevent persistently abnormal ODI3 in 1 child at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: An ODI3 ≥3.5 episodes per hour in nocturnal oximetry is related to increased resolution rate of nocturnal hypoxemia after T/A for SDB compared with no intervention.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".