Trends in chronic rhinosinusitis research in the past three decades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this work was to identify trends in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS)-related publications for the past 3 decades. METHODS: Literature review was conducted using multiple terms, including sinusitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, chronic sinus disease, nasal polyposis, ethmoid sinusitis, frontal sinusitis, and maxillary sinusitis. Abstracts were divided into 3 decades: 1983 through 1992, 1993 through 2002, and 2003 through 2012. For each decade, we compared the total number of publications and journals, study design, use of validated outcome measures, quality of evidence, number of authors, country of origin, and clinical vs basic science. RESULTS: A total of 3406 abstracts were identified. There was a statistically significant increase in the number of publications with a 637% increase from 1983 through 1992 to 2003 through 2012 (p < 0.05). Likewise, the number of journals with CRS-related publications significantly increased during the study period (117 to 350; p < 0.05). Prospective studies increased (15.30% to 28.90%, p < 0.05) and retrospective studies decreased (33.00% to 17.36%, p < 0.05). Cohort studies were the most common type of design study (18.70% to 32.46%). In studies reporting outcome measures, the use of validated measures significantly increased over time (2.56% to 49.70%, p < 0.05). Although, the quality of evidence for most clinical publications for all 3 decades were grade C, the number and percentage of grade A and grade B publications increased significantly over time (0.99% to 7.23%, p < 0.05; 6.9% to 10.44%, p < 0.05; respectively). CONCLUSION: CRS-related publication quantity and quality have increased over the last 3 decades.
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 | 0.013 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.038 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".