Long‐term utility outcomes in patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To define long-term health-state utility outcomes in patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) for refractory chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, longitudinal, cohort study. METHODS: The short-form (SF)-12 survey was issued to the 168 patients who were enrolled in an initial study evaluating short-term utility outcomes following ESS. SF-12 responses were converted into SF-6D utility scores using the University of Sheffield algorithm. The primary outcome was mean overall long-term utility level following ESS. Secondary outcomes evaluated annual utility level following ESS and utility outcomes for different subgroups of patients with CRS. RESULTS: A total of 83 patients provided long-term health-state utility outcomes. The mean overall long-term utility level was 0.80 at a mean follow-up of 5.2 years after ESS. Compared to the baseline (0.67) and short-term follow-up (0.75) utility levels in this group, there was a significant improvement at the long-term period (P = .002). A total of 54% (45/83) of patients achieved long-term postoperative utility scores higher than the United States norm of 0.81. There was a significant improvement in utility scores for all subsequent years after ESS compared to preoperative responses (all P < .028). All subgroups of CRS received significant long-term utility improvements (all P < .001), and those undergoing revision ESS demonstrated continued improvement past the short-term postoperative period. CONCLUSIONS: This study has demonstrated that patients with refractory CRS achieve stable mean long-term utility levels following ESS and often return to a health state comparable to US population norms.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".