Evaluation of quality of life after orthognathic surgery in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To develop a systematic review of patient perspectives on the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) after undergoing orthognathic advancement surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This systematic review adhered to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, and Patient, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) methodology was employed to formulate the research question. A literature search was performed using the following databases: Cochrane Library (Trials), PubMed via MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science (all databases). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess quality of the studies. RESULTS: Initially, 1407 articles were retrieved from diverse databases, and these were subjected to initial scrutiny. Subsequently, 17 articles were selected for thorough quality analysis and 6 studies for quantitative analysis. Most studies were classified as good quality. Maxillomandibular advancement surgery appeared to enhance patient satisfaction in cases of moderate to severe adult OSAS. CONCLUSIONS: Maxillomandibular advancement surgery significantly improves patients' subjective overall quality of life, improving by 6.36 points in questionnaire ratings and demonstrating long-term stability.
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 | 0.013 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".