Distribution of topical agents to the paranasal sinuses: an evidence‐based review with recommendations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this work was to review the literature concerning the distribution of topical therapeutics to the sinuses versus nasal cavity regarding: surgical state, delivery device, head position, and nasal anatomy and to provide evidence-based recommendations. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases to perform a Medical Subject Heading search of the literature from 1946 until the last week of May 2012. Articles were independently reviewed and graded for level of evidence. All authors came to consensus on recommendations through an iterative process. RESULTS: Recommendations were made for: improved sinus delivery with high-volume devices and after standard sinus surgery. Recommendations were made against low-volume delivery devices, such as drops, sprays, or simple nebulizers as they do not reliably reach the sinuses. If large-volume devices are not tolerated, low-volume devices are recommended using the lying head back or lateral head low positions to improve nasal cavity distribution to the middle meatus or olfactory cleft. CONCLUSION: Surgery, volume of device, head position, and nasal anatomy were shown to impact distribution to the sinuses. Recommendations are made based upon this evidence as to how to best maximize therapeutic distribution to the sinuses.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it