Treatment of Aspirin Exacerbated Respiratory Disease with a Low Salicylate Diet: A Pilot Crossover Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Aspirin exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD) is comprised of aspirin/acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) sensitivity, bronchial asthma, and nasal polyposis. Treatment of this condition is challenging and may include topical/systemic steroids, endoscopic sinus surgery, and/or aspirin desensitization. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective crossover pilot study (n = 10) was conducted in which patients were randomized into either of 2 groups with 6 weeks of regular diet (R) or 6 weeks of a low salicylate diet (LS). SETTING: The study was conducted in a tertiary otolaryngology clinic. SUBJECTS: Patients with AERD were enrolled in the study. METHODS: Subjective (Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 [SNOT-22], Nasal Sinus Symptom Scale [NSSS], and the Asthma Control Questionnaire-7 [ACQ-7]) and objective outcome instruments (Peri-Operative Sinus Evaluation [POSE] and Lund-Kennedy Endoscopic Score [LKES]) were used to evaluate patients at baseline, 6 weeks (at crossover), and 12 weeks. RESULTS: Wilcoxon rank sum tests demonstrated that patients on the low salicylate diet had improved scores compared to their regular diet when evaluated by 4 of the 5 outcome measures (SNOT-22 pLS = 0.0059, NSSS pLS = 0.0195, LKES pLS = 0.0039, POSE pLS = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Results of the pilot study indicate that implementation of a low salicylate diet improves the nasal symptoms and nasal endoscopy findings of individuals with AERD. Further research is required to support these findings.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".