Case reports of oral appliance therapy on three young adults with Down syndrome and OSA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with Down syndrome (DS) have a high incidence of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) due to hypotonia, weight, underdeveloped midface, and relative macroglossia. This article presents three cases of young adults with DS, who were diagnosed with mild to severe OSA and unable to tolerate positive airway pressure therapy. These patients have been successfully treated with a custom-made mandibular advancement device (MAD) or dual treatment with MAD and bi-level positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy. The baseline apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) of the three patients were 15.5/h, 31.8/h, and 41.3/h. The follow-up AHI after the application of MAD in three patients was 25/h (13 months after), 6/h (ODI 4%, 57 months after), and 21.8/h (21 months after), respectively. The application of MAD to treat OSA in patients with DS is a reasonable alternative when patients refuse PAP therapy. Although MAD might be less effective than PAP therapy, significant symptomatic improvement could be found in patients with DS after oral appliance therapy. The combination of MAD and PAP can decrease the PAP pressure and therefore improve adherence. This is the first case report to show that young adult patients with DS can successfully benefit from oral appliance therapy for OSA treatment.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".