MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nasal Nitric Oxide in Children: A Novel Measurement Technique and Normal Values

2002· article· en· W1975634386 on OpenAlexaff
Hamid Daya, Wei Qian, P. A. Mcclean, James S. J. Haight, N Zamel, Blake C. Papsin, Vito Forte

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Laryngoscope · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortNormal valuesNoseNasal vestibuleNormal populationPopulationAnesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To develop and standardize a technique for measuring nasal nitric oxide (NO) output in children and to determine normal values in this population. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study evaluating a new technique for measuring nasal nitric oxide in a cohort of normal patients and a cohort of patients with nasal disease. METHODS: Nasal NO was measured using an aspiration technique, aspirating room air through the nasal cavities by means of a Teflon nozzle placed in one nasal vestibule while maintaining velopharyngeal closure using a party "blow-out" toyRESULTS Nasal NO measurements were performed in 45 children (mean age, 11.0 y; age range, 3.2-17.6 y) There were 20 girls and 25 boys. All children were able to perform the maneuvers necessary for measurement of nasal NO output. Among the subgroup of normal healthy children (30), there was considerable variation in NO output between subjects, with a mean NO output of 481 nL/min and an SD of 283 nL/min. CONCLUSIONS: Nasal NO can be readily measured in children using the presented technique. There is considerable variability in the values for nasal NO output in normal children.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations20
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe LaryngoscopeSame topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleepFrench-language works237,207