Lack of association of impaired upper airway sensation with the presence or absence of obstructive sleep apnoea or chronic rhinosinusitis in World Trade Center responders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Examine sensory function of the upper airway in four groups of subjects recruited from the World Trade Centre General Responder Cohort (WTCGRC), with/without obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA), and with/without chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). METHODS: Upper airway sensory function was determined using 2-point discrimination (2-PD) and vibration threshold (VT) in 163 WTCGRC subjects with both OSA and CRS (cases), OSA or CRS alone and without OSA or CRS (controls). Presence of OSA was determined from clinical sleep studies or home sleep testing. Presence of CRS was determined by nasal symptom questionnaire. The relationship between the presence of OSA and CRS and upper airway sensory impairment was assessed using linear regression analysis with each of 2PD and VT sensory threshold values as the dependent variable; OSA, CRS and their interaction were the independent variables. Age, gender and body mass index were covariates in the statistical model. The primary analysis was comparison of OSA+CRS versus controls (no OSA and no CRS) evaluated by linear contrasts. RESULTS: There were no differences in 2-PD or VT in those with OSA+CRS, OSA and CRS alone or controls. However, both 2-PD and VT were significantly higher in the WTCGRC controls compared with values seen in historical controls using the same methodology (median 2-PD 13.0; CI (11.0 to 13.5) vs 10.5; CI (8 to 11); VT: mean±SEM (9.3±0.6 vs 2.2±0.1)). CONCLUSION: While no differences were found in upper airway sensation between cases of OSA and CRS versus controls in the WTGRC population, there was evidence of impaired upper airway sensation in the WTGRC overall.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".