MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Management of obstructive sleep apnea in children: a Canada-wide survey

2021· other· en· W6977426620 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2021
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNear-Field Optical Microscopy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObstructive sleep apneaOtorhinolaryngologyPolysomnographySleep (system call)TonsillectomySleep apneaMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Obstructive sleep apnea frequently persists in children following adenotonsillectomy, which is the first-line treatment recommended for obstructive sleep apnea with adenotonsillar hypertrophy. Drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) is a diagnostic tool increasingly used to assess pediatric obstructive sleep apnea, but its use has not been standardized. The overarching goal of this study was to document the current practice of Canadian otolaryngologists managing this population. Methods A nation-wide online cross-sectional survey of Canadian otolaryngologist members of the Canadian Society of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery and the Association d’otorhinolaryngologie et chirurgie cervico-faciale du Québec. The 58-question electronic survey was developed based on a validated survey redaction guide with the aim to assess management and treatment of pediatric obstructive sleep apnea, as well as indications and performance of DISE. Consensus on practice items was defined by a minimum of 75% similar answers. Results One hundred and nine Canadian otolaryngologists completed the survey on management of pediatric obstructive sleep apnea, among which 12 of them completed the questions on DISE. Overall, there was a poor rate of agreement of 55% among the respondents for the 58 questions altogether. There was a consensus to assess pediatric obstructive sleep apnea clinically ± with videos (82.6%), to assess adenotonsillar hypertrophy clinically (93.6%) and with flexible scope in the office (80.7%), as well as for the airway sites examined endoscopically during DISE. However, there was no consensus regarding anesthetic protocol and scoring system. DISE was mostly performed in cases of persistent obstructive sleep apnea after adenotonsillectomy rather than before performing any surgical procedure. There was no difference in the management of obstructive sleep apnea between otolaryngologists who perform DISE and those who do not. The only difference between otolaryngologists who practice in community centers versus in tertiary care centers was the more frequently use of the Brodsky tonsil scale by the latter ones. Conclusion This Canadian-wide survey highlighted a lack of consensus in the management of pediatric obstructive sleep apnea and DISE. Certain aspects regarding DISE remain unclear, including establishment of its ideal timing in order to eventually avoid unnecessary tonsillectomies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicNear-Field Optical MicroscopyFrench-language works237,207