Role of season, temperature and humidity on the incidence of epistaxis in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Classical dogma holds that epistaxis is more common in winter months but there is significant variability reported in the literature. No study has yet examined the effect of season, humidity and temperature on epistaxis in a location with as severe weather extremes as seen in Alberta, Canada. The objective of the study is to evaluate for an effect of these meteorological factors on the incidence of epistaxis in Alberta. METHOD: A retrospective review of consecutive adult patients presenting to the Emergency room (ER) in Edmonton and Calgary, Alberta over a three-year period was performed. Daily temperature and humidity data was recorded from the respective airports. Statistical analysis with Pearson's correlation coefficient was performed. RESULTS: 4315 patients presented during the study period. Mean daily temperatures ranged from a low of -40°C to a high of +23°C. A significant negative correlation was found for mean monthly temperature with epistaxis (Pearson's r = -0.835, p = 0.001). A significant correlation was also present for daily temperature and epistaxis presentation (Pearson's r = -0.55, p = 0.018, range 1.8 to 2.2 events/day). No correlation was identified with humidity and no significant seasonal variation was present. CONCLUSIONS: A negative correlation was found to exist for both daily and mean monthly temperature with rates of epistaxis. A seasonal variation was seen in Edmonton but not in Calgary. No correlation was found for humidity when compared to both presentation rates and admissions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".