GlideScope video laryngoscope-assisted tongue base radiofrequency for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: pilot study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the advantages and feasibility of using the GlideScope video laryngoscope (GSVL) (Saturn Biomedical Systems, Burnaby, BC) in radiofrequency tongue base reduction for patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). METHODS: Patients suffering from mild to severe OSAS associated with predominant tongue base obstruction (grade 3-4 Mallampati score) confirmed with physical examination who applied to our clinic during the first half of 2007 were included in our study. Seven-watt bipolar radiofrequency was applied to each patient's tongue base assisted by the GSVL at five to seven different locations for 30 to 35 seconds, resulting in energy application in a range of 210 to 245 J. All operations were carried out by the same surgeon, and patients were observed for 15 days postoperatively for any complications. RESULTS: Twelve patients were included in our study. Six of our patients were male and the other six were female. Each patient underwent a session of GSVL-assisted tongue base radiofrequency with a mean energy application of 210 to 245 J via five to seven punctures. The use of the GSVL assisted in a more thorough observation of tongue base anatomy, which aided in our aim to avoid the neurovascular bundle. The use of the GSVL during tongue base radiofrequency surgery creates a safer operation site and allows the surgeon to feel more confident during the procedure. The fact that we encountered no postoperative complications endorses our theory. CONCLUSION: The use of the GSVL in tongue base radiofrequency application not only creates a safer operative site and makes the procedure more uncomplicated but also could be an effective method that could be used in teaching hospitals for the education of otolaryngology surgeons regarding the tongue base radiofrequency procedure.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".