A comparison between nitric oxide output in the nose and sinuses: A pilot study in one volunteer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From a study of nitric oxide (NO) output in the nose and sinuses it seems that: (i) the results obtained regarding the regulation of NO output in the nose do not necessarily apply to the sinuses; (ii) the results obtained for one group of sinuses may not apply to another; and (iii) NO output in the sinuses does not behave as one would expect if it serves to protect against infection.A pilot study was undertaken in one subject to determine whether the control of NO output in the nose differs from that in the sinuses.NO output was measured by aspirating different gaseous concentrations of oxygen (and/or carbon dioxide) through the nasal airways or punctured maxillary and frontal sinuses before and after i.v. administration of L-arginine (20 mg/kg). In the absence of gaseous oxygen in the nose or maxillary antrum, the effect of L-arginine on NO output was the same as that in the presence of oxygen. In the frontal sinus, the effect of L-arginine on NO output was blocked by the absence of gaseous oxygen. NO output in the nose and frontal sinus showed similar changes after either i.v. administration of L-arginine or removal of oxygen from the air. NO output in the maxillary antrum was virtually unaffected by either procedure. NO output in the nose was largely unaffected by the gaseous carbon dioxide content but that in the frontal and maxillary sinuses was profoundly inhibited by it. In both sinuses, suppression of NO output by carbon dioxide was countered by oxygen. Alterations in the oxygen or carbon dioxide content of the maxillary antrum did not alter NO output in the frontal sinus, or vice versa. After i.v. infusion of L-arginine, nasal NO output remained elevated for >1 h.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".