Differences in Predicted Therapeutic Outcome of Mandibular Advancement Determined by Remotely Controlled Mandibular Positioner in Canadian and Chinese Apneic Patients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In-lab mandibular protrusive titration using a remotely controlled mandibular positioner (RCMP) could predict the success rate of mandibular advancement device (MAD) and reliably determine the Optimal Protrusive Position (OPP) for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) patients. The aim of this study was to compare MAD success rate using in-lab RCMP manual titration performed in Caucasian and Chinese OSA patients. Methods: Manual RCMP titration was performed during an in-lab sleep study using the same procedure that had been previously reported in untreated Caucasian and Chinese OSA patients. Success rate was determined according to classical success criteria or to those previously used for RCMP titration. Results: A total of 160 subjects were included in this study, and conclusive data were obtained from 141 (71 Chinese and 70 Caucasian OSA patients). Chinese patients were significantly younger, with lower BMI and more severe OSA disease than the Canadian counterparts. Among patients with predicted success, the OPP expressed in % of full protrusion position did not differ between the two ethnic groups. Chinese ethnicity, younger age and lower baseline AHI were significant determinants of RCMP success. In a multivariate analysis, only ethnicity and AHI were found to significantly account for success, the odds ratio for success in Chinese compared to Caucasians corrected for AHI being 3.7 and 4.6 depending on criteria used to define success. Conclusion: Although the OSA disease was more severe in Chinese patients, the predicted success rate of MAD according to RCMP titration was higher in Chinese than in Caucasians. This study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03231254).
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it