Olfactory and sinonasal outcomes in endoscopic transsphenoidal skull‐base surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic anterior skull-base surgery has been previously suggested to cause a significant deterioration in olfactory function. Given the impact on quality of life, the objective of this study was to determine the effect of a unilateral middle-turbinate-sacrificing approach on olfactory function and sinonasal outcome. METHODS: Prospective cohort study comparing olfactory and sinonasal outcomes pre- and post-transsphenoidal skull-base surgery. Olfaction was the primary outcome and was measured prospectively using the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (SIT). Sinonasal symptoms were assessed subjectively via sinonasal-specific questions from the 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22), and objectively via the Lund-Kennedy Endoscopic Scoring system (LKES). RESULTS: Twenty-two patients met study inclusion criteria and completed all data acquisition. The mean preoperative SIT score was 34.8 and the mean postoperative SIT value was 35.1 (p = 0.37). The average change in score (delta) was an increase of 0.3, with changes ranging from -3 to +4. When examined categorically, 91% of patients maintained their preoperative olfactory function classification. There was no significant difference in mean pre- and postoperative symptom scores. A small increase in the LKES was noted, from a mean of 0.6 to 2.5 (p = 0.001) in the early postoperative period. CONCLUSION: Olfactory function, as measured by the SIT test, was preserved with a middle-turbinate-sacrificing skull-base approach. Subjective sinonasal symptom scores were unaffected, but a slight worsening of objective endoscopic appearance was noted.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".