Aspirin desensitization for aspirin‐exacerbated respiratory disease (Samter's Triad): a systematic review of the literature
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
OBJECTIVES: To critically review the current literature regarding aspirin desensitization treatment for nasal polyposis in patients with Aspirin-Exacerbated Respiratory Disease (AERD). STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of the literature. METHODS: All English literature published between January 1995 and February 2013 reporting specifically nasal outcomes following aspirin desensitization in AERD patients were eligible for inclusion. Exclusion criteria were non-investigative, non-human, and ex-vivo studies. Studies were categorized by level of evidence and evaluated for quality using the Downs and Black scale. RESULTS: A total of 614 citations were retrieved and eleven studies met the criteria for analysis. Outcome measurements included self-reported symptom scores, amount of corticosteroid use, rate of revision surgery, and quantitative measurements such as rhinomanometry. Overall, most studies reported a significant improvement in symptom scores, decrease in corticosteroid use, and decrease in revision surgery. A few studies showed promising results with quantitative outcomes. However, most studies were of Level 2 evidence with small samples sizes. Rates of adverse events ranged from 12.5% to 23%. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike traditional treatments for nasal polyposis, aspirin desensitization targets AERD etiology rather than phenotype and can be an effective therapeutic option. While the current literature shows encouraging results, additional studies are needed to better define clinical benefits.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it