To Assess the Quality of Life in Patients Suffering from Allergic Rhinitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Allergic Rhinitis (AR) associated with impairments in patients day-to-day functioning at home and work is a global health problem. It’s associated with sleep disorders, emotional problems, impairment in activities, and social functioning. However, it’s not known to what extent quality of life (QOL) scores, work impairment, or sleep is altered in Indian setup hence, this study was designed to assess the quality of life of patients suffering from allergic rhinitis.Methodology: This prospective, observational, cross sectional study was conducted on patients suffering from allergic rhinitis visiting the out patients | department. The patients who gave written informed consent were divided into two groups based on gender, Group 1 was males and Group 2 was females. A detailed history was taken and participants underwent thorough medical examination, followed by assessment on Rhino conjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) and WHOQOL – Bref scores.Results: A total of 87 patients were screened of which 40 patients were enrolled in study. The average age of patients in the study was 28.08±10.01, a total of 26 males and 14 females completed the study. There were significantly worse non nose/eyes symptoms scores, practical problems, and emotional scores in patients in Group 2 as compared to Group 1. Group 1 had better aspect of sleep, nasal symptoms, and eyes symptoms as compared to Group 2. Whereas, Group2 had better aspect of activities score as compared to Group 1.Conclusion: To conclude both groups had compromised quality of life, with females being more affected as compared to males
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 | 0.002 | 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".