Use of the ExVent accessory with the O2Vent Optima oral appliance for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea – A clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The ExVent is an optional accessory to the O2Vent Optima mandibular advancement device (MAD) and provides oral Expiratory Positive Airway Pressure (EPAP). The oral EPAP provided by the ExVent accessory is designed to augment the OSA therapy provided by the O2Vent Optima. Methods: This is a prospective, open-label, single-arm study conducted at 3 sites. Subjects who have been diagnosed with mild to moderate OSA (i.e., AHI ≥ 5 and ≤ 30) were included. The subjects completed a PSG study to obtain the baseline AHI and confirm a diagnosis of mild to moderate OSA. Subsequent to the Home Use Phase subjects underwent an in-lab PSG sleep night while using the O2Vent Optima + ExVent. Primary Outcome Measure: Change in AHI between baseline and the AHI measured during the in-lab PSG sleep night using O2Vent Optima + ExVent. Results Patients with mild to moderate OSA were treated with Optima MAD and ExVent for 3 months at 3 different sites in North America. Preliminary data analysis demonstrated that treatment with Optima MAD and ExVent reduced AHI from 13.5±6.4/hr to 6.6±4.5/hr (p> 0.05), average 58% reduction in AHI. The lowest oxygen during sleep increased from 84.6±2.7% to 88.6±2.9% (p< 0.05). Overall success rate (>50% reduction in AHI) with treatment was 80%. Conclusion: The clinical trial confirmed successful treatment with combined use of O2Vent Optima MAD and oral Expiratory Positive Airway Pressure accessory - ExVent in patients with mild to moderate OSA. Treatment was well tolerated with no excessive adverse effects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".