The role of trigeminal function in the sensation of nasal obstruction in chronic rhinosinusitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Trigeminal sensation (TS) within the nasal cavity is important for the perception of nasal airflow. The objective of this study is to examine whether impaired TS contributes to the sensation of nasal obstruction in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective case-control study conducted in a tertiary referral rhinology clinic. METHODS: Cases consisted of CRS patients with subjective nasal obstruction, not previously treated with oral corticoids. Controls consisted of patients without CRS. Neither group demonstrated obvious anatomical obstructions. Both groups underwent peak nasal inspiratory flows (PNIF), olfactory testing (quick eight-item odor identification test), and trigeminal testing (lateralization task using eucalyptol and odorless solvent). RESULTS: A total of 28 subjects (14 CRS patients and 14 controls) were recruited. Analyses revealed no statistical differences in age (P = .93), gender (P = .47), or PNIF (P = .82) between the two groups, but they differed in Lund-Mackay scores (P < .001). There was no significant difference in olfactory testing (P = .15). CRS patients had significantly lower scores on trigeminal lateralization testing than controls (P = .007). Linear regression revealed that Lund-Mackay scores contributed a significant amount of variance to trigeminal lateralization scores, controlling for age and sex (F = 5.93, P = .004, R(2) = 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to demonstrate that patients with CRS have lower TS than healthy controls. Our results suggest defective TS could play a role in the sensation of nasal obstruction in CRS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3b. Laryngoscope, 126:E174-E178, 2016.
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 | 0.001 | 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".