Intrasinus Administration of Topical Budesonide to Allergic Patients With Chronic Rhinosinusitis Following Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Whether instillation into the maxillary sinus of topical budesonide affected the immune response and improved allergic patients with chronic rhinosinusitis that had persistence of symptoms despite appropriate surgical intervention was assessed. STUDY DESIGN: Double-blind placebo-controlled. METHODS: Twenty-six patients with allergy to house dust mites who had previously had surgery and who had persistent symptoms of disabling rhinorrhea or pressure-pain resistant to oral antibiotics and intranasal corticosteroids were recruited. During the double-blind study, patients instilled 256 microg budesonide daily or placebo through an intubation device (maxillary antrum sinusotomy tube) into one of the maxillary sinuses for 3 weeks before clinical assessment and a second biopsy. RESULTS: We found an improvement in the symptom scores in 11 of the 13 patients who received budesonide; we also found a decrease in CD-3 (P = .02) and eosinophils (P = .002), and a decrease in the density of cells expressing interleukin4 (P = .0001) and interleukin-5 messenger RNA (P = .006) after treatment. CONCLUSION: Topical budesonide delivered through a maxillary antrum sinusotomy tube can control chronic rhinosinusitis that persists after surgery.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".