An update on diagnosis and management of obstructive sleep apnoea in the first 2 years of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this review is to summarise evidence that became available after publication of the 2017 European Respiratory Society statement on the diagnosis and management of obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS) in 1- to 23-month-old children. The definition of OSAS in the first 2 years of life should probably differ from that applied in children older than 2 years. An obstructive apnoea–hypopnoea index >5 events·h−1may be normal in neonates, as obstructive and central sleep apnoeas decline in frequency during infancy in otherwise healthy children and those with symptoms of upper airway obstruction. A combination of dynamic and fixed upper airway obstruction is commonly observed in this age group, and drug-induced sleep endoscopy may be useful in selecting the most appropriate surgical intervention. Adenotonsillectomy can improve nocturnal breathing in infants and young toddlers with OSAS, and isolated adenoidectomy can be efficacious particularly in children under 12 months of age. Laryngomalacia is a common cause of OSAS in young children and supraglottoplasty can provide improvement in children with moderate-to-severe upper airway obstruction. Children who are not candidates for surgery or have persistent OSAS post-operatively can be treated with positive airway pressure (PAP). High-flow nasal cannula may be offered to young children with persistent OSAS following surgery, as a bridge until definitive therapy or if they are PAP intolerant. In conclusion, management of OSAS in the first 2 years of life is unique and requires consideration of comorbidities and clinical presentation along with PSG results for treatment decisions, and a multidisciplinary approach to treatment with medical and otolaryngology teams.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".