Using response to a standardized treatment to identify phenotypes for genetic studies of chronic rhinosinusitis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Studies of the genetics of chronic rhinosinusitis offer potential insights into the pathophysiology of this poorly understood condition. However, genetic studies are both expensive and time consuming-hence the importance of establishing beforehand the proper population and target genes. We wished to identify patient factors associated with a proposed definition of severe chronic rhinosinusitis to minimize heterogeneity and maximize the impact of genetic contributions. We therefore wanted to determine if the response to a standardized therapy following endoscopic sinus surgery could be used as a viable phenotypic criterion for subsequent genetic studies. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Tertiary sinus centre. METHODS: Seventy-one cases of chronic rhinosinusitis refractory to medical and surgical treatment were studied. They formed two groups according to their response to a standardized treatment protocol. We collected information concerning patients' characteristics and bacteriology on endoscopic culture. RESULTS: 60.5% patients were managed successfully with budesonide irrigations. Atopy was present in 33.8%, asthma in 69.0%, and aspirin sensitivity in 33.3%. The rate of asthma was higher in nonresponders. Bacterial colonization rates showed the presence of Staphylococcus aureus (36.4%), gram-negative rods (29.1%), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (32.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with refractory chronic rhinosinusitis represent a severely diseased, more homogeneous population in which the genetic contribution(s) to disease may be maximal. Strong associations with asthma, aspirin intolerance, and atopy suggest links between these disorders. Irrigation with budesonide solution appears to be effective in management. Studies of the genetics of chronic rhinosinusitis will include genes known to be involved with both asthma and innate immunity.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".