Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence-based medicine principles applied to otolaryngology and endoscopic sinus surgery provide the surgeon, patient, and third-party payer with all of the necessary requirements to evaluate the effectiveness of the surgery. Above all, they ensure long-term improvement in quality of life and patients' satisfaction. A specific study on the outcomes of endoscopic sinus surgery is presented. A longitudinal observational study of 51 patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery for recurrent acute rhinosinusitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, and nasal polyposis was done in two hospitals. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively with a disease-specific health status questionnaire (Quebec French-Rhinosinusitis Outcome Measure) and a general health status questionnaire (the Medical Outcome Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey). The results show statistically significant improvement in quality of life after endoscopic sinus surgery in both the disease-specific and the disease-generic health status questionnaires. The broader subject of objective and subjective outcomes assessment, along with evidence-based evaluation, is discussed.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".