Choanal atresia: Long‐term follow‐up with objective evaluation of nasal airway and olfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the status of nasal airway and olfaction of adult subjects born with choanal atresia (CA). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A case-control study was conducted to compare the quality of nasal airway and olfaction in a group of adults born with CA to a similar group of normal subjects. Objective evaluation of nasal airway and olfaction were done respectively by acoustic rhinometry and the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT). RESULTS: Thirty-six choanal atresia patients aged 16 to 36 were found in the medical records. Five bilateral and two unilateral cases were recruited for the study. An average score of 27/40 (moderate hyposmia) was obtained by the bilateral cases compared with 37/40 (normal) by the controls. These results were statistically significant (Wilcoxon signed rank test and sign test statistic, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Using the UPSIT, the bilateral CA patients have shown, on average, a moderate loss of the sense of smell when compared with normal controls of a similar age group. Acoustic rhinometry is not a useful study for posterior nasal conditions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".