0562 Assessment of Mandibular Advancement Treatment Success According to Upper Airway Muscle Mechanical Properties in Obstructive Sleep Apnea Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mandibular advancement device (MAD) is a valid treatment for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). However there is no reliable criteria predicting treatment efficacy. Upper airway muscle mechanical properties (UAMP) are important pathophysiological determinants of the occurrence of OSA that could be involved in MAD treatment response. The aim of this study was to investigate UAMP in the response to MAD in OSA patients. 9 subjects were recruited to perform either a soft palate fatigue protocol (SPFP, n=4) or a tongue fatigue protocol (TFP, n=5) before initiating MAD treatment. In SFPF, subjects were asked to develop sustained maximal bulging pressure for 5 seconds every 10 seconds until the peak pressure failed to reach 85% of baseline maximal pressure for 2 consecutive times. In TFP, subjects had to press an air filled bulb with the tongue against the hard palate. Endurance time, recovery time, and mean maximum pressure were measured. Sleep studies were performed before the beginning of MAD treatment and after the titration period. Characteristics of subjects for SFPF group were 1 female, age 54 ± 8 y, BMI 29.1 ± 3.1 kg/m2. Characteristics of TFP were 1 female, age 62 ± 2, BMI 26.8 ± 2.8 kg/m2. Baseline AHI was 22.8 ± 8.7/h for SPFP and 36.7 ± 13.1/h for TFP. MAD AHI was 10.4 ± 8.2/h for SFPF and 18.2 ± 12.8/h for TFP. 2 TFP and 2 SPFP subjects were responders (AHI decrease greater than 50% with a final MAD AHI < 15/h). No difference was found in endurance time and recovery time between responders (5.1 ± 6.8 and 4.0 ± 2.8 min respectively) and non-responders (11.2 ± 6.1 and 6.8 ± 4.6 min), but difference in mean maximum pressure was borderline significant (34.8±13.6 and 60.0±10.7 kPa respectively, p=0.07). Our pilot results suggest that mechanical strength but not fatigue may differentiate MAD responders/non-responders. Supported by Le fonds de recherche et enseignement sur les troubles respiratoires du sommeil de la Fondation IUCPQ.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".