Orthodontic interventions as a management option for children with residual obstructive sleep apnea: a cohort study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is a sleep-breathing disorder that seems likely to have long-term negative social and health consequences in children and adolescents. There are no established standard management approaches when the first line of therapy, the tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy (T&A), is not indicated or fails to address paediatric OSA (residual paediatric OSA). This protocol describes a prospective cohort study that aims to assess the effectiveness of orthodontic interventions for managing residual paediatric OSA in patients with concomitant craniofacial issues. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Children aged 6-16 years who with an OSA diagnosis and did not benefit from previous T&A or qualified for T&A will be recruited. Orthodontic intervention(s), when adequately indicated (maxillary expansion, mandibular advancement or maxillary complex advancement with skeletal anchored headgear), and a control (orthodontic intervention declined) cohorts will be involved. A sample size of 70 participants (n=35 per cohort) is planned. Effectiveness data will be assessed through nocturnal polysomnography, a craniofacial index, sleep questionnaires and medical records. Additionally, the association of residual OSA and two comorbidities, obesity and asthma, will be investigated through assessing blood, urine and saliva metabolites. The changes on body mass index will also be investigated as a secondary outcome. Other additional outcomes, including association between residual paediatric OSA and periodic limbs movement, restless leg syndrome, insomnia, and the use of abiometric shirt to sleep monitoring purposes will also be considered. All participants will be followed up for 12 months after treatment allocation. The effectiveness of the intervention will be analysed by the assessment of sleep parameters, medical history (from medical chart reviews), questionnaire responses, craniofacial characteristics and metabolomic markers using an algorithm to be developed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Health Research Ethics Board-Health Panel, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada (Pro00084763). The findings will be shared with scientific and patient content-specific social network communities to maximise their impact on clinical practice and future research in the study topic. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03821831; Pre-results.
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 | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.006 |
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".