MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W188206220 · doi:10.1177/194589240301700208

The Four Components of the Nasal Valve

2003· article· en· W188206220 on OpenAlexaff
P. L. Cole

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Rhinology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNasal Surgery and Airway Studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnatomyAirflowDilatorBiomedical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nasal valve consists of four distinct airflow-resistive components. (i) The vestibule terminates in an airflow-resistive aperture between the septum and the caudal end of the upper lateral cartilage. Its cross-sectional area is stabilized by the cartilaginous structures and by inspiratory isometric contractions of alar dilator muscles. Its walls are devoid of erectile tissues that might otherwise affect its cross-sectional area and airflow resistance. By contrast, (ii) the bony entrance to the cavum is occupied by erectile tissues of both (iii) lateral (turbinate) and (iv) septal nasal walls that modulate the cross-sectional area of the airway and airflow resistance. The body of the cavum offers little resistance to airflow. Valve constrictions induce "orifice flow" of inspiratory air as it enters the body of the cavum, disrupting laminar characteristics and thereby enhancing exchanges with the nasal mucosa of heat, water, and contaminants. Acoustic rhinometric and rhinomanometric measurements show the sites, dimensions, and resistances of the valve constrictions and indicate that it is seldom necessary to extend septal and/or turbinate surgery far beyond the piriform aperture in the treatment of nasal obstruction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations114
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of RhinologySame topicNasal Surgery and Airway StudiesFrench-language works237,207