A Randomized Crossover Trial to Evaluate the Effect of Positioning on Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Infants with Robin Sequence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prone position is one of the most frequently used treatment options for infants with Robin sequence (RS), but its effect and its safety regarding the increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome are controversial. METHODS: In a prospective randomized crossover study, we investigated the effects of the prone versus supine position on obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) using polygraphy. Infants with RS admitted to the University Hospital Tuebingen between 4/2021 and 5/2023 were analyzed for their obstructive apnea index (OAI), oxygen desaturation index < 80%, minimum and basal oxygen saturation, basal and highest transcutaneous carbon dioxide level, and respiratory and heart rate in both sleep positions. RESULTS: A total of 29 children were analyzed. A total of 21/29 children were measured in both positions, while 6/29 children were only measured in the supine position and 2/29 only in the prone position. We found no significant difference in the OAI for the supine versus prone position in main effects analyses. In unadjusted linear model analysis, infants in the supine position had an OAI of 9.9 (95% CI, -2.4, 22.3) events/h higher than those in the prone position. A total of 13/21 infants benefitted from the prone position, whilst 8/21 had a worsening of their OSA. We found no evidence of a significant interaction between sleeping position and syndromic status. CONCLUSIONS: Prone positioning improves, but does not eliminate, OSA symptoms in infants with RS, and severe OSA may often persist. There are infants in whom a change to the prone position leads to a worsening of their OSA.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".