Expert Consensus Statement: Management of Pediatric Persistent Obstructive Sleep Apnea After Adenotonsillectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop an expert consensus statement regarding persistent pediatric obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) focused on quality improvement and clarification of controversies. Persistent OSA was defined as OSA after adenotonsillectomy or OSA after tonsillectomy when adenoids are not enlarged. METHODS: An expert panel of clinicians, nominated by stakeholder organizations, used the published consensus statement methodology from the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery to develop statements for a target population of children aged 2-18 years. A medical librarian systematically searched the literature used as a basis for the clinical statements. A modified Delphi method was used to distill expert opinion and compose statements that met a standardized definition of consensus. Duplicate statements were combined prior to the final Delphi survey. RESULTS: After 3 iterative Delphi surveys, 34 statements met the criteria for consensus, while 18 statements did not. The clinical statements were grouped into 7 categories: general, patient assessment, management of patients with obesity, medical management, drug-induced sleep endoscopy, surgical management, and postoperative care. CONCLUSION: The panel reached a consensus for 34 statements related to the assessment, management and postoperative care of children with persistent OSA. These statements can be used to establish care algorithms, improve clinical care, and identify areas that would benefit from future research.
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 | 0.089 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".