Особенности хронического риносинусита, ассоциированного с гастроэзофагеальной рефлюксной болезнью
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective to study the clinical and laboratory features of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Materials and Methods: The study involved 87 patients with complaints of difficulty in nasal breathing and 30 healthy volunteers with no pathology ENT and GERD. The diagnosis of CRS met the criteria EPOS 2012. Diagnosis of GERD was performed based on the recommendations of the Montreal consensus. All investigated conducted a survey for the presence of esophageal and extraesophageal manifestations of GERD, fibroesophagogastroduodenoscopy, LOR examination with the use of endoscopes, rhinoscopy, laryngoscopy, computed tomography of the paranasal sinuses, pH-metry mucous secretions of the nose and pharynx using visual test strips, microbiological examination of discharge from the middle of the nose stroke. Association of CRS with GERD with GERD compared with impaired nasal breathing inflammatory and non-inflammatory genesis in the absence of GERD and healthy volunteers accompanied by a large variety and frequency of symptoms, endoscopic signs of laryngitis back, reducing the pH of the pharynx, the change in quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the microflora of the nasal mucosa and paranasal sinuses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".