Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To correlate patient reports of olfactory dysfunction after surgical intervention for allergic fungal rhinosinusitis (AFRS) with endoscopic findings, psychophysical testing, and quality-of-life scores. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. SETTING: A tertiary care rhinology clinic at St Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. PATIENTS: Eighty-one patients with AFRS seen at routine postoperative follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Sniffin' Sticks test and a visual analog scale for the perceived olfactory ability of patients with AFRS were administered, along with a 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey. An endoscopic staging score was assigned for each patient. RESULTS: Forty men and 41 women with AFRS underwent olfactory testing; 52 of these individuals completed all parts of the assessment. The mean threshold, discrimination, and identification score was 19 (hyposmic), with a significant correlation between patients' performance on the Sniffin' Sticks test and endoscopic staging, as well as their reported olfactory ability (P < .001 for all 3 tests). The mean score for the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey was 71, but there was a poor correlation between it and the threshold, discrimination, and identification score; visual analog scale; and endoscopic scores (P > .05 for all 3 tests). CONCLUSION: All patients with AFRS should be evaluated with olfactory testing and treated according to the results.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".