Recurrence of sinonasal inverted papilloma following surgical approach: A meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives/Hypothesis Inverted papilloma (IP) is a rare benign tumor, which is found in the sinonasal area. It is characterized by recurrence, local destruction, and malignant change. Of these, recurrence is a challenging problem to many otolaryngologists. In this study, we evaluated recurrence based on the type of surgical approach using a meta‐analysis. Study Design MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane database. Methods Relevant studies were identified by searching the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane through February 2016. Random‐effects models were used to estimate risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The Newcastle‐Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of cohort studies. Results Our search yielded 14 retrospective cohort studies involving a total of 696 endoscopic approaches and 444 nonendoscopic approaches. The pooled RR for IP recurrence (endoscopic vs. external approach) was 0.56 [95% CI: 0.36‐0.85, I 2 =48.3%]. A subgroup analysis was also performed. Conclusions Surgical management of IP via an endoscopic approach reduces the risk of recurrence compared to an external approach. Although further data are needed, early‐ stage IP requires endoscopic or endoscopic‐assisted surgery to reduce the risk of tumor recurrence. Level of Evidence NA Laryngoscope , 127:52–58, 2017
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".