Frontal Sinus Cells: Identification, Prevalence, and Association with Frontal Sinus Mucosal Thickening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Frontal sinus cells (FSCs) are thought to be a potential cause of narrowing of frontal recess outflow. It remains unclear if FSCs are associated with frontal sinus mucosal thickening and chronic rhinosinusitis. The goal of the current study is to determine the prevalence of FSCs and their association with frontal sinus mucosal thickening. METHODS: All adult patients undergoing computed tomography (CT) scans of the paranasal sinuses at our institution between February and October 2010 were reviewed. All CT scans were evaluated for the presence of FSC (types 1-4) and association with frontal mucosal thickening. The secondary outcome measure was to examine interrater agreement between two raters who independently evaluated all CT scans. RESULTS: Analysis of 399 CT scans was performed with 71 scans excluded. The proportion of patients with FSC type 1 was 26%, 6.4% was type 2 cells, 2.1% was type 3 cells, and 0% was type 4 cells. The odds ratio of mucosal thickening for type 1 FSCs was 15.9 (95% CI, 9.8-25.7), type 2 was 13.7 (95% CI, 6.7-27.8), and type 3 was 9.5 (95% CI, 3.0-30.2). Interrater agreement for the evaluation of mucosal thickening was high (kappa, 0.69-0.76; p = 0.001). Agreement for the presence or absence of FSCs was moderate (kappa, 0.392; p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: There is a significant association of frontal sinus mucosal thickening with the presence of FSCs. Independent raters have moderate agreement when identifying the presence and type of FSCs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".