MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008536127 · doi:10.2310/7070.2001.20906

Clinical Manifestations of Sinonasal Pathology during Pregnancy

2001· article· en· W2008536127 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Steven E. Sobol, Saul Frenkiel, Dan Nachtigal, Daniel Wiener, Christine Teblum

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Otolaryngology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and Medication Impact
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinerhinorrheaPregnancySinusitisNasal congestionVisual analogue scaleObstetricsSurgeryNose

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Pregnancy may confer a number of conditions related to the head and neck. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical manifestations of sinonasal pathology that occur during pregnancy. METHODS: Thirty-three pregnant patients were evaluated for the occurrence of rhinorrhea, congestion, epistaxis, or acute sinusitis during the first trimester of pregnancy, controlling with 28 women of child-bearing age. A visual analogue scale was used to grade the severity of each symptom. Statistical analysis was carried out to assess for significant differences in the prevalence and severity of symptomatology between cases and controls. RESULTS: Compared to the control group, there was no statistically significant difference in the prevalence of congestion, epistaxis, rhinorrhea, or acute sinusitis. There was no statistically significant difference in the severity of any presenting symptom between pregnant and control group patients. CONCLUSION: Pregnancy is not associated with an increased prevalence or severity of nasal symptomatology during early pregnancy. The influence of hormonal changes on nasal physiology during pregnancy is discussed with a view toward safe management.

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)0.003
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Citations36
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of OtolaryngologySame topicPregnancy and Medication ImpactFrench-language works237,207