P070 Efficacy of the ExVent Accessory with the O2Vent Optima Oral Appliance in the Treatment of Obstructive Sleep Apnea – A Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction The study assessed the efficacy of oral appliance device O2Vent Optima and ExVent, an oral Expiratory Positive Airway Pressure (EPAP) accessory in the treatment of OSA. Methods A prospective, open-label study conducted at 3 sites in mild to moderate OSA (AHI ≥ 5 and ≤ 30). Screening Phase A diagnostic in-lab PSG study confirmed a diagnosis of mild to moderate OSA. Treatment I Subjects used O2Vent Optima for 6 weeks and underwent a PSG sleep night while using the O2Vent Optima. Treatment II Subjects used O2Vent Optima + ExVent for 6 weeks and underwent a PSG sleep night while using the O2Vent Optima + ExVent Primary Effectiveness Measure: Change in AHI between baseline vs. O2Vent Optima MAD vs. O2Vent Optima + ExVent Results Treatment with Optima, Optima + ExVent reduced AHI from 22.5±6.4/hr to 12.6±4.5/hr to 5.9±2.7 (p< 0.005 baseline vs. Optima and Optima + ExVent; p<0.05 Optima MAD vs. Optima + ExVent). Average reduction in AHI with Optima was 43% and with Optima + ExVent was 72%. The lowest oxygen during sleep increased from 84.6±2.7% to 88.6±2.9% to 91.6±3.2% (p< 0.005 baseline vs. Optima and Optima + ExVent; p<0.05 Optima vs. Optima + ExVent). During the trial patients on treatment with Optima and Optima + ExVent demonstrated no excessive adverse events or device malfunction. Conclusion Treatment with O2Vent Optima and O2Vent Optima + ExVent significantly improved OSA compared to the baseline. Even greater benefit was observed with addition of ExVent to the Optima in mild to moderate OSA.
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) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".