Impact of Rhinosinusitis in Health Care Delivery: The Quebec Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Rhinosinusitis is a common disease affecting 135 per 1,000 population. The cost and the impact on quality of life of this disease are considerable. Health care delivery for a particular disease is evaluated through the health impact of the disease, outcomes of treatments, and their costs. This article reviews our experience with rhinosinusitis and its impact on health, as measured using a generic quality of life instrument, the Medical Outcome Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), in a selected patient population. Outcomes of treatments will be introduced, and the economic impact of chronic rhinosinusitis based on a U.S. study will be discussed. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred and ten patients (divided into three subgroups: recurrent acute rhinosinusitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, and nasal polyposis) completed the SF-36 survey on the day of the diagnostic visit in the outpatient sinus clinics of two hospitals. RESULTS: The scores of the SF-36, in chronic rhinosinusitis, are compared with the normative values of a healthy U.S. population showing statistically significant differences in seven of eight domains. A comparison of the scores of chronic rhinosinusitis with a U.S. study on chronic rhinosinusitis shows statistically significant differences in five of eight domains. A comparison of the scores in the three diagnostic subgroups shows a statistical significance in two domains: bodily pain and vitality are more affected in recurrent acute and chronic rhinosinusitis. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic rhinosinusitis affects the quality of life of patients with rhinosinusitis and represents an important health burden. Some differences are noted with the U.S. chronic rhinosinusitis population. Recurrent acute and chronic rhinosinusitis seem to have more impact on vitality and bodily pain than nasal polyposis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".