MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017353192 · doi:10.1097/moo.0b013e32834dfb3d

Olfactory improvement after endoscopic sinus surgery

2011· review· en· W2017353192 on OpenAlexaff
Luke Rudmik, Timothy L. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head & Neck Surgery · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
KeywordsHyposmiaAnosmiaMedicineChronic rhinosinusitisEndoscopic sinus surgeryOlfactionOlfactory systemSinusitisSurgeryInternal medicineDiseaseNeurosciencePsychiatryCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Olfactory dysfunction is a common complaint in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). The purpose of this article is to review the current evidence on the impact of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) on CRS-related olfactory dysfunction. RECENT FINDINGS: The recent literature suggests that olfactory outcomes after ESS are challenging to predict. Some evidence supports a positive impact of ESS on improving olfactory outcomes in patients with preoperative nasal polyposis and anosmia. However, despite improvements in smell, most of these patients remain with severe hyposmia. One study suggests ESS has no impact on olfactory outcomes. SUMMARY: CRS-related olfactory dysfunction is a complex clinical scenario and it is challenging to predict improvement following ESS. CRS patients with anosmia and nasal polyposis preoperatively may have a higher likelihood of olfactory improvement following ESS.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.304
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.055 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations64
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head & Neck SurgerySame topicOlfactory and Sensory Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207