Pediatric inferior turbinoplasty with or without adenoidectomy: preliminary report on improvement of quality of life, symptom control, and safety.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine quality of life (QOL) improvement, symptom control, and safety after inferior turbinoplasty (IT) with or without adenoidectomy (Ad) in children. DESIGN: Retrospective uncontrolled cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary care pediatric hospital. METHODS: A prospective database was searched. The database contained information regarding age, gender, other diagnoses, and complications. Inclusion criteria were (1) children who presented with chronic rhinitis (CR) refractory to medical treatment and (2) children who underwent IT with or without Ad. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Glasgow Children's Benefit Inventory (GCBI) was used to assess QOL improvement. The GCBI calculates a score ranging from -100 (maximum harm) to +100 (maximum benefit), with 0 representing no change after surgery. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients were identified. Forty-one were excluded owing to concurrent lingual tonsillectomy or septal or sinus surgery. Forty-six consecutive patients were included. Data were obtained from all 46 patients (100%). The average age was 10 years, with 15 females and 31 males. One complication required admission. The GCBI scores showed that patients derived benefit in all domains (median GCBI 28.1, range -6.3 to 93.8). CONCLUSION: Preliminary results indicate that IT with or without Ad is a safe, beneficial procedure for CR in children. The impact of IT on QOL is comparable to that of well-established operations in otolaryngology.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".