MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7162419276 · doi:10.1055/s-0046-1820212

VALIDAÇÃO DE UM APARELHO INTRA-ORAL PARA O TRATAMENTO DA SÍNDROME DA APNÉIA OBSTRUTIVA DO SONO-SAOS

2011· article· en· W7162419276 on OpenAlexaff
L C Giannasi, F R Almeida, L VF Oliveira

Bibliographic record

VenueSleep Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOtolaryngology and Infectious Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMEDLINEElectrodiagnosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUÇÃO: É grande a variedade de dispositivos no mercado atualmente e, não é incomum ver pacientes usando aparelhos sem eficácia e sem comprovação científica. OBJETIVO: Validação do aparelho intra-oral (AIO) PMPositioner para o tratamento do ronco/SAOS, através da polissonografia (PSG). A escala de sonolência de Epworth (ESE) foi utilizada para avaliar sonolência diurna no mesmo período. MÉTODOS: Um estudo retrospectivo foi realizado em 69 pacientes usuários do PMPositioner para o tratamento do ronco/SAOS, entre 2000-2010. O diagnóstico foi estabelecido pelo exame de PSG antes e após 6 meses de uso do AIO. A sonolência diurna foi avaliada no mesmo período, através da ESE. RESULTADOS: Os pacientes foram divididos em 2 grupos, roncadores (GR n=7) e o grupo SAOS (GSAOS n=62). O GR não apresentou resultados significativos mas, o ronco foi eliminado. Observou-se que no GSAOS 25 (40%) dos pacientes apresentaram um IAH ≤5.0; 52 (84%) apresentaram um IAH≤10.0 e 60 (3.2%%) um IAH≤15.0. Nos pacientes com SAOS leve, o IAH reduziu de 12,2±2.0 para 3.3±2.6 p<0.0001; nos SAOS moderada (33), o IAH reduziu de 21.0±3.5 para 4.6±3.8 (p<0.05); nos SAOS grave (12), o IAH reduziu de 44.8±13.5 para 10.0 to 4.3 (p<0.05). Outras variáveis fisiológicas também tiveram resultados significativos, bem como os valores para a ESE. CONCLUSÃO: O PMPositioner foi efetivo no tratamento da SAOS e na redução da sonolência diurna. Publication History Article published online: 26 May 2026 © 2011. Brazilian Sleep Academy. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda. Rua Rego Freitas, 175, loja 1, República, São Paulo, SP, CEP 01220-010, Brazil

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.113
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.113
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueSleep ScienceSame topicOtolaryngology and Infectious DiseasesFrench-language works237,207