Allergic fungal rhinosinusitis - a new staging system
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 existing Kupferberg post-operative endoscopic staging system for allergic fungal rhinosinusitis (AFRS) has 4 stages (0-3) based on the `global` appearance of one side of the nose. Patients may however show visual improvement and yet remain at the same stage due to persistence in one sinus cavity, thus making the staging system ineffective. The aim of this study was to validate a new system that allows greater sensitivity in characterising the inflammation seen endoscopically. METHODOLOGY: A series of endoscopy videos of 50 patients with AFRS were retrospectively staged using a new ten-grade system, scoring each sinus cavity (maxillary, ethmoid, frontal and sphenoid) from 0-9 for increasing mucosal oedema and 1 point for the presence of fungal mucin giving a maximum score of 40 for each side of the nose. To assess reliability, 4 independent rhinologists were also asked to score the videos using the new system. RESULTS: A greater variety in the spectrum of mucosal disease was demonstrated with the new system allowing for a more descriptive analysis of its severity and its response, or lack of, to treatment. The inter-class correlation between the 6 total observers was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.83, 0.92). CONCLUSION: Use of the new staging system provides a more sensitive tool for following patients` progress post-operatively in allergic fungal rhinosinusitis and in determining their response to treatment.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it