Expiratory Positive Expiratory Pressure (EPAP) enhanced Mandibular Advancement Device (MAD) is well tolerated with minor adverse effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The ExVent is an accessory to the O2Vent Optima mandibular advancement device (MAD) and provides oral Expiratory Positive Airway Pressure (EPAP). Oral EPAP with the ExVent is designed to augment the OSA therapy provided by the O2Vent Optima. Long term complications and adverse effects associated with this combination therapy are not known, but require inquiry. Methods: A retrospective survey was conducted of all patients who received O2Vent Optima MAD and ExVent in Canada and Australia since 2019. Data collected following consent included: demographics, duration of use, frequency of use, complications and adverse events. Results: Out of the 480 patients, 168 (35%) could be contacted and agreed to participate. 31 (18%) had stopped using the appliance. Out of 137 (81%) subjects, 118 (86%) were still using the ExVent Accessory, 92% medium strength (Yellow). 56% used morning aligner and 74% performed regular jaw exercises. After 4 weeks of the device use, excessive salivation was (12%), tooth and jaw pain were reported occasionally (8%), tooth movement was none (0%). Gum or tongue bruises (0%). TMJ pain/stiffness (5%). Change in bite or occlusion leading to discontinuation (0%), temporary chewing difficulties (24%) and dry mouth (0%). Difficulty to insert or remove ExVent valve (0%), difficulty breathing (0%), Malfunctioning or dislodgement of ExVent valve (0%). Participants reportedly valued their device (94%) and benefited with ExVent (100%). Conclusion: Majority of the patients prescribed O2Vent Optima and ExVent accessory were compliant, demonstrated no significant complications and had minor adverse effects with the combination therapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".