Extended Observation of the Nasal Cycle Using a Portable Rhinoflowmeter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Nasal patency varies owing to the effects of humidity, temperature, and exercise. In addition, periodic cycles of congestion and decongestion that alternate between the right and the left side of the nose, which are termed the "nasal cycle," have been observed. The physiologic mechanisms underlying this cycle are not clear. Sympathetic nerves that supply the nose are regulated by the hypothalamus and the vasomotor areas of the brainstem. It is possible that the nasal cycle could be involved in protection against respiratory infection or allergies. Conventional methods of studying the nasal cycle, including rhinomanometry and acoustic rhinometry, impose limitations on the location and timing of evaluation. We studied the nasal cycle using a new portable device for relatively long-term rhinoflowmetry. METHODS: Twenty normal subjects aged 24 to 77 years were fitted with the portable rhinoflowmeter (Rhinocycle, Rhinometrics, Lynge, Denmark) to continuously measure nasal air flow via each nostril over 12 daytime hours. RESULTS: No subject complained of discomfort owing to the device, and 14 of them showed a detectable nasal cycle. The mean nasal cycle duration was 110 minutes, although variation was considerable, even in a single subject. CONCLUSIONS: The portable device proved useful for observing the nasal cycle, and it should be valuable for the general investigation of nasal physiology.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".