Surgical Distance to the Sphenoid Ostium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To establish and compare the distance and angle from the limen nasi to the sphenoid ostium in pediatric patients with normal sinonasal anatomy vs pediatric patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). DESIGN: Retrospective review of computed tomographic images. SETTING: Tertiary university-based medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (newborn to age 20 years) with normal sinonasal anatomy (n = 117) or CF (n = 15). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We used a fourth-degree polynomial to curve-fit the distance to the sphenoid ostium vs age for patients with normal sinonasal anatomy, producing a coefficient of determination (R(2)) of 82%. With this regression curve, we produced a normative distance equation and a normative distance graph using age to predict the distance (95% confidence interval). We validated the normative distance curve fit among 30 new pediatric patients. RESULTS: No significant difference in the distance to the sphenoid ostium was found between healthy patients and patients with CF. There was no correlation between age and angle in either patient group. The mean (SD) angle was statistically different between healthy patients (37.5 degrees [7.5 degrees]) and patients with CF (41.4 degrees [7.4 degrees]). CONCLUSIONS: Using a normative distance graph and the mean angle, surgeons performing pediatric endoscopic sinus surgery can predict the distance to the sphenoid ostium for healthy patients and for patients with CF. These findings may decrease complications of endoscopic sinus surgery among the pediatric population.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".