Research routes on improved sleep bruxism metrics: Toward a standardised approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recent report from the European Sleep Research Society's task force "Beyond AHI" discussed an issue that has been a long-term subject of debate - what are the best metrics for obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) diagnosis and treatment outcome assessments? In a similar way, sleep bruxism (SB) metrics have also been a recurrent issue for >30 years and there is still uncertainty in dentistry regarding their optimisation and clinical relevance. SB can occur alone or with comorbidities such as OSA, gastroesophageal reflux disorder, insomnia, headache, orofacial pain, periodic limb movement, rapid eye movement behaviour disorder, and sleep epilepsy. Classically, the diagnosis of SB is based on the patient's dental and medical history and clinical manifestations; electromyography is used in research and for complex cases. The emergence of new technologies, such as sensors and artificial intelligence, has opened new opportunities. The main objective of the present review is to stimulate the creation of a collaborative taskforce on SB metrics. Several examples are available in sleep medicine. The development of more homogenised metrics could improve the accuracy and refinement of SB assessment, while moving forward toward a personalised approach. It is time to develop SB metrics that are relevant to clinical outcomes and benefit patients who suffer from one or more possible negative consequences of SB.
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 | 0.025 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".