Long‐term frontal sinus patency after endoscopic frontal sinusotomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The frontal recess is the drainage pathway that connects the frontal sinus to the anterior ethmoid sinus. Mechanical obstruction is the primary cause of chronic frontal sinusitis with or without a secondary inflammatory process. Eosinophilic inflammation is one of the underlying causes for chronic rhinosinusitis. OBJECTIVES/HYPHOTHESIS: To evaluate long-term frontal sinus patency after endoscopic frontal sinusotomy in chronic rhinosinusitis patients and to assess the effect of eosinophilic inflammation on frontal sinus patency. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. Symptom assessment and archived endoscopic photographs were prospectively collected on patients who underwent frontal sinusotomy between 7-1-1999 and 12-31-2000. Subjective symptom improvements were evaluated using the SNOT-20 = 20-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test. Objective findings of endoscopic frontal sinus patency were documented by archived digital photography. RESULTS: A total of 161 patients with 294 frontal sinuses who underwent endoscopic frontal sinus surgery in the 18 months had an average follow-up of 45.9 months. The patient population was divided into two groups: 58 patients had eosinophilic CRS (ECRS), and 103 patients had CRS without eosinophils (non-ECRS). The mean follow-up for patients with ECRS is 61.6 months and 37.0 months for non-ECRS patients. The non-ECRS patients had a documented endoscopic frontal sinus patency of 90%, and the ECRS patients had an endoscopic frontal sinus patency of 85%. The overall frontal ostium patency rate for all patients was 88.0%. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term endoscopic confirmation of frontal ostium patency demonstrates that endoscopic frontal sinusotomy can yield high quality, durable results. There was no significant difference in patency results between ECRS and non-ECRS patients. Laryngoscope, 2009.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".