L’influence du syndrome d’apnées obstructives du sommeil sur la décision thérapeutique orthodontique chez l’enfant et l’adolescent. Partie 1 : Phénotypes du SAOS, temporalité des traitements et effets réciproques sur la croissance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Pediatric OSAS is a complex condition, comprising a plurality of clinical signs, complicated by the phenomena of growth. Its etiology is dominated by the hypertrophy of lymphoid organs, but obesity and certain craniofacial and neuromuscular tone abnormalities also contribute. Material and Method: The authors summarize the interrelations between pediatric OSAS endotypes, phenotypes and orthodontic anomalies. They report clinical practice recommendations on the multidisciplinary management of pediatric OSAS and define the place and timing of orthodontics. Results: There is an indication for treatment of pediatric OSAS for an OAHI greater than 5/h, regardless of comorbidity, as well as for symptomatic children, whose OAHI is between 1-5/h. The first line of treatment is adenotonsillectomy, but it does not always normalize the OAHI. Complementary treatments are often necessary: early orthodontics (rapid maxillary expansion, myofunctional appliances), oral reeducation, as well as the management of obesity and allergies. Careful watching, without treatment is possible for mild cases with few symptoms, as pediatric OSAS tends to resolve naturally with growth. Discussion: The therapeutic approach is stratified, depending on the severity of OSAS and the child's age. In terms of orthodontic repercussions, obesity is associated with earlier maturation and some facial morphological differences, while oral hypotonia and nasal obstruction can alter facial growth, promoting mandibular hyperdivergence and maxillary deficiency. Conclusion: Orthodontists are in a privileged position for the detection, follow-up and certain treatments 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".