The relationship between mouth opening and sleep stage-related sleep disordered breathing.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate mouth opening during sleep and the possible correlations between mouth opening and specific patient characteristics. METHODS: A total of 55 patients consecutively referred to assess snoring and suspected obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) were included. Sensors to record mouth opening were attached to each patient's face and synchronized with a standard polysomnogram. Mouth opening data were evaluated for each sleep stage as a percentage of maximum mouth opening. The patients were divided into 2 groups: patients with REM apnea hypopnea index (AHI) > NREM AHI (REM-dependent group = RD group), and patients with NREM AHI > REM AHI (NREM-dependent group = ND group). RESULTS: A total of 42 patients (male 69.0%, mean age 51.4 ± 12.9 years) underwent successful data collection. The amount of mouth opening during stage 1 (18.8% ± 14.6%) was significantly smaller than stage 2 (23.7% ± 16.4%, p < 0.01) and REM (29.2% ± 20.3%, p < 0.01). Age, body mass index (BMI), Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score, and AHI exhibited no correlation with mouth opening. The RD and the ND groups exhibited similar age, BMI, ESS, and AHI variables, but the ND group opened their mouths significantly more than the RD group during total sleep time (28.3% ± 13.6% vs 17.8% ± 17.3%, p < 0.01), stage 1 (23.2% ± 13.5% vs 12.9% ± 14.3%, p < 0.01), stage 2 (28.1% ± 17.9% vs 17.9% ± 17.4%, p < 0.01), and REM (34.7% ± 19.2% vs 21.9% ± 19.8%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The ND patients opened their mouths wider than the RD patients during most sleep stages. The relationship between REM-dependent AHI and the amount of mouth opening may be a factor in the pathogenesis of OSA.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".