Clinical evaluation of a novel internal nasal dilation stent for the improvement of nasal breathing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study assessed rhinometric improvement in nasal airflow, perceived comfort, and the utility of nasal dilation devices for individuals with nasal obstruction treated with an external nasal dilator (END) or a novel internal nasal dilation stent (INDS). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, crossover trial. SUBJECTS: Individuals with symptoms of nasal obstruction. METHODS: Twenty-three participants underwent rhinometry and a trial with a novel INDS and a validated END. Devices were used in a randomized, crossover fashion. Nasal airflow, maximum use, continuous use, comfort, and challenge with these devices were assessed. RESULTS: The END and INDS showed greater nasal airflow from baseline, with the INDS being significantly better than the END. The INDS was used significantly more than the END, and demonstrated significantly greater comfort and less associated challenge. CONCLUSIONS: The novel INDS showed 3.4 times improved nasal airflow from baseline, was used maximally and continuously longer than a validated END, and was judged to be significantly more tolerable.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".