Identification of chronic rhinosinusitis phenotypes using cluster analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current clinical classifications of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) have been largely defined based upon preconceived notions of factors thought to be important, such as polyp or eosinophil status. Unfortunately, these classification systems have little correlation with symptom severity or treatment outcomes. Unsupervised clustering can be used to identify phenotypic subgroups of CRS patients, describe clinical differences in these clusters and define simple algorithms for classification. METHODS: A multi-institutional, prospective study of 382 patients with CRS who had failed initial medical therapy completed the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22), Rhinosinusitis Disability Index (RSDI), Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-12 (SF-12), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2). Objective measures of CRS severity included Brief Smell Identification Test (B-SIT), CT, and endoscopy scoring. All variables were reduced and unsupervised hierarchical clustering was performed. After clusters were defined, variations in medication usage were analyzed. Discriminant analysis was performed to develop a simplified, clinically useful algorithm for clustering. RESULTS: Clustering was largely determined by age, severity of patient reported outcome measures, depression, and fibromyalgia. CT and endoscopy varied somewhat among clusters. Traditional clinical measures, including polyp/atopic status, prior surgery, B-SIT and asthma, did not vary among clusters. A simplified algorithm based upon productivity loss, SNOT-22 score, and age predicted clustering with 89% accuracy. Medication usage among clusters did vary significantly. CONCLUSION: A simplified algorithm based upon hierarchical clustering is able to classify CRS patients and predict medication usage. Further studies are warranted to determine if such clustering predicts treatment outcomes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".