When do the risks of repeated courses of corticosteroids exceed the risks of surgery?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The management of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) becomes unclear when patients require multiple courses of corticosteroids to maintain quality of life. Repeated courses of corticosteroids carry increased risks to patients. Although endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) is an effective therapeutic modality, it also carries inherent risks. This study aims to identify the threshold at which the risks of repeated courses of corticosteroid exceed the risks of surgery. METHODS: An evidence-based risk analysis was simulated using literature-reported complication rates, quality of life changes, and Medicare costs. Simulations were performed from the Medicare patient perspective, societal perspective, and the universal healthcare patient perspective. RESULTS: All 3 simulations demonstrate a breakeven threshold favoring surgery over medical therapy when patients require oral corticosteroids (OCS) more often than once every 2 years in CRSwNP, once per year in CRSwNP/asthma, or twice per year for Samter's triad patients. CONCLUSION: This represents the first rationalized evidence-based analysis for when surgery should be considered in place of repeated courses of oral corticosteroids. This threshold provides a guide for otolaryngologists to use when making clinical decisions with patients.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".