Feasibility of oropharyngeal and respiratory muscle training in individuals with <scp>OSA</scp> and spinal cord injury or disease: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the feasibility of individuals with spinal cord injury or disease (SCI/D) to perform combined oropharyngeal and respiratory muscle training (RMT) and determine its impact on their respiratory function. METHODS: A prospective study at a single Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center. Inclusion criteria included: 1) Veterans with chronic SCI/D (>6 months postinjury and American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) classification A-D) and 2) evidence of OSA by apnea-hypopnea index (AHI ≥5 events/h). Eligible participants were randomly assigned to either an experimental (exercise) group that involved performing daily inspiratory, expiratory (using POWERbreathe and Expiratory Muscle Strength Trainer 150 devices, respectively), and tongue strengthening exercises or a control (sham) group that involved using a sham device, for a 3-month period. Spirometry, maximal expiratory pressure (MEP), maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP), polysomnography, and sleep questionnaires were assessed at baseline and at 3 months. RESULTS: Twenty-four individuals were randomized (12 participants in each arm). A total of eight (67%) participants completed the exercise arm, and ten (83%) participants completed the sham arm. MIP was significantly increased (p < 0.05) in the exercise group compared with the baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Combined oropharyngeal and RMT are feasible for individuals with SCI/D. Future studies are needed to determine the clinical efficacy of these respiratory muscle exercises.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".