Variation in Tonsil Size in 4- to 17-Year-old Schoolchildren
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the variation in tonsil size and prevalence of asymmetric tonsils in 4- to 17-year-old schoolchildren and the relationships between tonsillar hypertrophy and frequent tonsillitis, frequent fever, and sleep-related symptoms observed by parents. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Six daycare centres, four primary schools, and four high schools. METHODS: Questionnaire and physical examination. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The size of the tonsils was evaluated and scored on a 4-point scale. The interrelationships between tonsillar hypertrophy and other studied symptoms were examined. RESULTS: In the study, the parents of 1784 children, consisting of 803 (45%) boys and 981 (55%) girls, completed the questionnaires. The prevalence rates of snoring, habitual snoring, observed apnea, and habitual observed apnea were 24.6%, 4.1%, 3.8%, and 0.9%, respectively. The results of tonsil scoring were grade 1, 62.7%; grade 2, 28.4%; grade 3, 3.3%; and grade 4, 0.1%. The prevalence rate of grade 1 tonsils was increasing, whereas the prevalence rates of grade 2 and 3 tonsils were decreasing with increasing age. Tonsil size peaked in 4- to 8-year-old children. The prevalence rates of tonsillar hypertrophy and asymmetric tonsils were 3.4% and 1.7%, respectively. Tonsillar hypertrophy was found to be significantly associated with male gender, a history of frequent tonsillitis, a history of frequent fever, often or always snoring, and often or always observed apnea. CONCLUSIONS: A tonsil size curve was developed in 4- to 17-year-old schoolchildren. Children aged 4- to 8 years with oropharyngeal symptoms and particularly male gender should undergo consultation with otorhinolaryngology and pediatric pulmonology physicians for the evalution of adenotonsillar tissue.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".