28th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Dental Sleep Medicine: San Antonio, TX, June 7-9, 2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) is a sleep related breathing disorder, commonly treated by either Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) or a Mandibular Advancement Device (MAD).Long-term follow-up and comparison regarding efficacy of these therapies is scarce.In this study the results of treatment, patient compliance and satisfaction over a 10-year followup of CPAP and MAD therapy are reported.Methods: 103 OSAS patients were selected for a randomized controlled clinical trial.After a 10-year follow-up period, 14 patients using MAD and 17 patients using CPAP could be evaluated.Data was analyzed at baseline, after 3-months and at 1, 2, and 10-year follow-up.All 31 OSAS patients were subjected to polysomnography and subjective measurements.Results: Polysomnography showed a favorable outcome of both therapies at 10-year follow-up.At baseline, both therapies did not significantly differ in apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) values.At 10-year follow-up both, MAD and CPAP group, showed a significant reduction in AHI.At baseline the mean AHI in MAD group was 31.7±20.6whereas in the CPAP group 49.2±26.1.At 10-year followup the mean AHI in MAD group was 9.9±10.3and in the CPAP group 3.4±5.4.From a subjective perspective both therapies resulted in a substantial improvement in neurobehavioral outcomes at 10-year follow-up.Conclusions: Both CPAP and MAD therapy demonstrate good and stable treatment effects after a 10-year follow-up period.Therefore, when indicated, both therapies are appropriate modalities for the long-term management of OSAS.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.228 | 0.158 |
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".