Outcomes and cost benefits of functional endoscopic sinus surgery in severely asthmatic patients with chronic rhinosinusitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the outcomes (using validated outcome tools) and cost benefits of functional endoscopic sinus surgery in a population of severely asthmatic patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted. The study comprised consecutive patients diagnosed with asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis for whom medical treatment had failed and who were scheduled for functional endoscopic sinus surgery. General health and disease-specific outcome questionnaires were completed pre- and post-operatively. Costs associated with both functional endoscopic sinus surgery and out-patient visits to a comprehensive asthma clinic were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 47 patients completed the surveys. The average improvement in Chronic Sinusitis Survey scores following functional endoscopic sinus surgery was 17 per cent. The average reduction in out-patient asthma clinic visits was 50 per cent, which translates to an average cost saving of $1035 Canadian dollars per patient per year. CONCLUSION: Functional endoscopic sinus surgery is a cost-effective treatment modality for asthmatic patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. This information is important for: the distribution and planning of resources, prioritising health programmes, and establishing practice guidelines.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".