Behavioural disorders and parental stress in children suffering from obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome: a pre- and post-adenotonsillectomy confrontation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary goal of the present study was to compare breathing difficulties resulting from OSAS to possible cognitive-behavioural problems of the child linked to their parents’ emotional-relational aspects. There is strong evidence that sleep breathing disorders are associated with behavioural alterations, a tendency towards aggressiveness, weak school performance and a clear disorder in continuous and selective attention other than vigilance status. Not all patients suffering from OSA have cognitive and/or behavioural manifestations; furthermore, the degree of dysfunction that the patient may present does not seem to be associated with the seriousness of sleep breathing disorder (SBD). It is therefore likely that genetic susceptibility associated with particular environmental factors has a role in determining phenotypic manifestations which are unique for every single patient. Questionnaires were given to parents, one regarding executive functions and one regarding parental stress: Conners’ Rating Scale Revised; Parenting Stress Index. All parents of children who suffer from moderate to severe OSA, with a McGill score of 3 to 4 and with no exclusion criteria are included in the study; behavioural and parental stress evaluation was made during hospitalisation and at 6 months after adenotonsillectomy. The results show that resolving OSAS led to important improvements in the competence and behavioural attitudes of the patient, as well as in relational and management difficulties by parents. The identification of such indicators could represent a support to surgical programming, even in nonsevere SBD. Future research will have the goal of identifying standardised risk indicators that can provide further indications for surgical treatment in children up to 5 years of age.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".