Clinical correlations to distinguish from milder forms of obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome using overnight oximetry to prioritize adenotonsillectomy in a low resource setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In resource-poor settings with limited surgical services, it is essential to identify and prioritise children with severe and very severe obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS) to expedite surgery. McGill's Oximetry Score (MOS) has been validated against polysomnography for OSAS and is affordable and easy to use. Aims: The aim of this study was to assess the correlation of tonsillar size and clinical symptoms with MOS grade 3 or 4, to identify who requires overnight oximetry and who to prioritise for adenotonsillectomy. Methods: Children with suspected OSAS were recruited from the otolaryngology clinic at the Red Cross War Memorial Children‟s Hospital. Demographics, symptom screening scores (SSS), patient characteristics, overnight oximetry (OO), echocardiography and MOS scores (graded 1- 4) were recorded. Multivariate modified-Poisson regression models were used to examine correlations of patient characteristics „with grade 3 or 4 MOS. Results: One-hundred-and-three children were analysed, 38% were female, and median (IQR) age was 3.8 (2.5-5.3) years. Increased tonsil size was associated with a 60% increased risk of grade 3 or 4 MOS, risk ratio (RR) 1.59, 95% CI 1.10-2.29 (p=0.014). Children with witnessed apnoeic events during sleep had 1.3 times increased risk of MOS Grade 3 or 4, RR 1.31, 95% CI (p=0.033). A significant correlation was shown with grade 3 or 4 MOS, RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.03-1.27 (p=0.010) by combining tonsillar size with the following symptoms: apnoeic events; struggling to breathe during sleep and; needing to stimulate the child to breathe. Conclusion: Identifying children with suspected OSAS who require overnight oximetry can be performed using a simple 3-question screening tool: witnessed apnoeic events, struggling to breathe and the need to shake them awake to breathe. This is more precise with an additional clinical finding of grade 3 or 4 tonsils. These children should have surgery expedited. Any child with a MOS 3 or 4 score on OO needs to have expedited surgery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".