MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006395311 · doi:10.1016/j.otohns.2004.02.007

Prevalence of Allergy in Patients with Chronic Rhinosinusitis

2004· article· en· W2006395311 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Gutman, Augusto Torres, Kevin J. Keen, Steven M. Houser

Bibliographic record

VenueOtolaryngology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSinusitis and nasal conditions
Canadian institutionsCoquitlam College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAllergyAsthmaDust mitesPerennial plantImmunologyDermatologyInternal medicineAllergen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to provide further evidence that allergic rhinitis is an important factor in chronic and recurrent acute rhinosinusitis. Specifically, this study shows that perennial allergens play a more significant role than seasonal allergens. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Census by chart review of patients with chronic and recurrent acute rhinosinusitis presenting to the Department of Otolaryngology at the MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, OH. METHODS: All participants had allergy testing done either by RAST or intradermal skin endpoint titration utilizing a battery of seasonal and perennial antigens. RESULTS: Of the 48 voluntary participants analyzed in this study, 57.4% had a positive allergy test. Most patients in the study were sensitive to more than one allergen. Of the patients with a positive allergy test, 92% demonstrated sensitivity to one or more perennial allergens-most prominently, molds and dust mites. CONCLUSIONS: Perennial allergy has a statistically significant association with chronic and recurrent acute rhinosinusitis. SIGNIFICANCE: The diagnosis and management of perennial allergies may be beneficial when treating chronic sinus 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations92
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOtolaryngologySame topicSinusitis and nasal conditionsFrench-language works237,207