Strengthening oropharyngeal muscles as an approach to treat post‐stroke obstructive sleep apnea: A feasibility randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to determine the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating oropharyngeal exercise (OPE) intervention as an alternative therapy for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in patients with stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA). Despite the high prevalence of OSA in this population, the standard therapy, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), is often poorly tolerated. Thirty stroke/TIA patients with OSA unable to tolerate CPAP were randomly assigned to an oropharyngeal exercise or sham exercise protocol. They performed exercises for 6 weeks, 5 days per week, 30 minutes twice per day. Feasibility was ascertained by the proportion of enrolled patients who completed more than 80% of the OPE regimen. Isometric tongue pressures, apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), oxygen desaturation index (ODI), daytime sleepiness, and quality of life (QOL) outcomes were collected at baseline, post-training (6-week follow-up), and retention (10-week follow-up) to document preliminary efficacy. Adherence to study exercises was excellent, with 83% of participants completing more than 80% of the exercises. The isometric tongue pressures were observed to improve in the oropharyngeal exercise group (compared with the sham group), along with a decrease in OSA severity (measured by the AHI and ODI), reduced daytime sleepiness, and enhanced quality of life outcomes following the exercise programme. Only the effects on posterior isometric tongue pressure and daytime sleepiness remained significantly different between groups at the retention session. In conclusion, an RCT evaluating the efficacy of oropharyngeal exercises on post-stroke/TIA OSA is feasible and our preliminary results suggest a clinically meaningful effect.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".