Nasal morbidity following endoscopic skull base surgery: A prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nasal morbidity following skull base surgery necessitates follow-up for postoperative care. We describe nasal morbidity following endoscopic skull base surgery. METHODS: Patient and operative data and postoperative subjective and objective measures of morbidity were prospectively collected for 1 year. Time to absence of crusting and remucosalization were determined. Risk factor analyses for crusting and nasal discharge were performed. RESULTS: Nasal crusting (98%) and discharge (46%) were the most common postoperative symptoms. Median time to absence of crusting was 101.0 days, with longer times for complex cases (p = .033) but not for patients with septal flaps or fat grafts. Median time to remucosalization after nasoseptal flap was 89.0 days. There were no risk factors for crusting, although surgical complexity was a risk factor for postoperative discharge (odds ratio [OR] = 5.17). CONCLUSIONS: Nasal morbidity following endoscopic skull base surgery is common and may be affected by surgical complexity and use of the nasoseptal flap.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".