Snoring Remediation with Oral Appliance Therapy Potentially Reverses Cognitive Impairment: An Intervention Controlled Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Respiration rate (RR) dynamics entrains brain neural networks. RR differences between mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in response to oral appliance therapy (OAT) are unknown. This pilot study investigated if RR during stable sleep shows a relationship to pathological severity in subjects with MCI and AD who snore and if RR is influenced following stabilization of the upper airway using OAT. The study cohort was as follows: cognitively normal (CN; n = 14), MCI (n = 14) and AD (n = 9); and a sub-population receiving intervention, CN (n = 5), MCI (n = 7), AD (n = 6) subjects. The intervention used was an oral appliance plus a mouth shield (Tx). RR maximum (max) rate (breaths/minute) and RR fluctuation during 2116 stable sleep periods were measured. The Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) was administered before and after 4 weeks with Tx. Baseline data showed significantly higher RR fluctuation in CN vs. AD (p < 0.001) but not between CN vs. MCI (p = 0.668). Linear mixed model analysis indicated Tx effect (p = 0.008) for RR max. Tx after 4 weeks lowered the RR-max in MCI (p = 0.022) and AD (p < 0.001). Compared with AD RR max, CN (p < 0.001) and MCI (p < 0.001) were higher with Tx after 4 weeks. Some MCI and AD subjects improved executive and memory function after 4 weeks of Tx.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".