Continuous tongue suction as a potential therapy for obstructive sleep apnea: A feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During wakefulness, apneic events, even in patients with severe obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), rarely occur regardless of the presence or absence of such episodes while asleep, because the augmented activity of the genioglossus muscle acts to patent the upper airway by maintaining the tongue in position.Hence, it is reasonable to hypothesize that OSA could be alleviated if the awake tongue position is maintained despite a sleep-related reduction in genioglossus muscle activity.The median (interquartile range) respiratory event index was significantly reduced with continuous tongue suction (23 [16-27] to 8 [7-14] events/h, P = 0.043) in 5 patients who successfully completed the protocol.Because this approach does not require either positive airway pressure or mandibular advancement, it makes it possible to completely avoid the adverse effects associated with the use of nasal continuous positive airway pressure and/or mandibular advancement devices in patients for whom nasal continuous positive airway pressure and mandibular advancement devices are contraindicated.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".