Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to delineate the clinical features of the paranasal sinus fungus ball and to evaluate the effectiveness of transnasal endoscopic sinus surgery as a primary surgical method for treating the paranasal sinus fungus ball. SETTING: A tertiary medical centre. DESIGN AND METHODS: Eighty-five patients (86 cases) who were treated for paranasal sinus fungus ball with transnasal endoscopic sinus surgery between 1995 and 2004 in our Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical features, surgical techniques, operative findings, postoperative results, and complications were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: All cases were treated successfully by transnasal endoscopic sinus surgery. No recurrences or postoperative complications were observed. However, in 18 cases, fungal debris was observed when sinus irrigation was carried out at the first follow-up visit. In these cases, no additional fungal debris was found by 1.7 weeks (average) postoperatively, and no recurrences were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Transnasal endoscopic sinus surgery, followed by postoperative nasal cavity and paranasal sinus irrigation, is effective as a primary treatment method for paranasal sinus fungus ball.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".