The Rhinological Manifestations of Women's Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature and appraise the evidence reporting the effects of women's health, including pregnancy, postpartum, menstruation, oral contraception, menopause, and hormone replacement therapy, on common rhinological pathologies and nasal physiology. DATA SOURCES: Systematic search strategy using MEDLINE (1966-2012) and EMBASE (1980-2012) databases. REVIEW METHODS: Title review, abstract screening, and then full paper analysis were undertaken by 2 authors independently. Level of evidence was graded according to the Oxford Centre of Evidence Based Medicine 2011 criteria and risk of bias assessment using the Jadad scale for randomized controlled trials and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort and case-controlled studies. RESULTS: Over the 46 years analyzed, the search strategy produced 2904 titles. In total, 314 abstracts were screened, from which 192 full-text articles were evaluated, and 145 research papers met all the criteria for inclusion in the study. Overall, the available evidence was of low quality. Seventy percent of studies (102 of 145) were case reports or case series from which only limited conclusions can be drawn. Only 3% of the included papers (4 of 145) were randomized controlled studies. The remaining data were mainly of a prospective cohort design. Study heterogeneity in design and measured outcomes resulted in data synthesis being limited to a descriptive/exploratory review. Study findings are presented by women's health category and then by rhinological manifestation with important clinical correlations highlighted. CONCLUSION: Physiological and hormonal changes occurring as a normal part of women's health have an important influence on rhinological function and disease.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".