MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2508512131 · doi:10.2500/ajra.2016.30.4345

Development of a Novel T-tube Frontal Sinus Irrigation Catheter

2016· article· en· W2508512131 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Rotenberg, Khrystyna Ioanidis, Leigh J. Sowerby

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Rhinology and Allergy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSinusitis and nasal conditions
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFrontal sinusSurgeryRestenosisBleedStentCatheter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The problem of postoperative management after frontal sinus surgery remains a challenge. The bilateral opening created in the Draf III procedure does not fit any currently available stent, and patients find rinsing the frontal sinus difficult, which thus decreases compliance. The objective of this study was to demonstrate the successful use of a novel frontal sinus catheter fashioned from a biliary T tube by addressing these issues in patients with complicated sinus disease. METHODS: This was a review of 30 patients who underwent a Draf III procedure between January and October 2014, and who had a T-tube stent inserted at the end of the procedure. Patient charts were analyzed for complications such as bleeding, infection, and restenosis as well as indications of ease of rinsing ability after surgery. RESULTS: From the chart data, there was only one intraoperative bleed and only one postoperative bleed that required packing. Four patients had infections that required antibiotics after surgery. At the time of data collection, only one patient had signs of restenosis as judged by the operating surgeon. Patients reported an ease of rinsing ability with the T-tube stent. CONCLUSIONS: The novel biliary T-tube stent use presented in this article is a promising future direction for postoperative care after extended frontal sinus surgery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Rhinology and AllergySame topicSinusitis and nasal conditionsFrench-language works237,207