The role of the human microbiome in otolaryngology–head and neck surgery: A contemporary review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The human microbiome represents the collective genomes and gene products of microbes living within and on humans. The objective of this review is to provide a summary of the current microbiome literature pertaining to otolaryngology-head and neck surgery. DATA SOURCE: Ovid MEDLINE. METHODS: Scientific publications with clinical correlates. RESULTS: Human microbiome studies have been facilitated by culture-independent, high-throughput sequencing methods. Data from the Human Microbiome Project has shown that the composition of the human microbiome is specific to each body site and that each individual has a unique microbiome. Alterations in the human microbiome are associated with some disease states; thus, novel therapeutic strategies are being developed based on concepts and findings stemming from microbiome research. CONCLUSIONS: Although a growing body of research shows potential significance of the human microbiome for human health and disease, there is a paucity of microbiome studies in otolaryngology. More studies are required to increase our understanding of the indigenous microbiota and their effects on diseases of the head and neck.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".