Surgical, clinical, and functional outcomes of transoral robotic surgery used in sleep surgery for obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We investigated safety and efficacy of transoral robotic surgery (TORS) for base of tongue (BOT) reduction in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) patients. PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched. A meta‐analysis was performed. Random effects models were used. Thirty‐one cohorts met our criteria (1693 patients). The analysis was based mostly on retrospective studies. The summary estimate of the reduction of Apnea–Hypoxia Index (AHI) was 24.25 abnormal events per hour (95% CI: 21.69–26.81) and reduction of Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) was 7.92 (95% CI: 6.50–9.34). The summary estimate of increase in lowest O2 saturation was 6.04% (95% CI: 3.05–9.03). The success rate of TORS BOT reduction, either alone or combined with other procedures, was 69% (95% CI: 64–79). The majority of studies reported low level of evidence but suggested that TORS BOT reduction may be a safe procedure associated with improvement of AHI, ESS, and lowest O2 saturation.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".