Mortality risk in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis and its association to asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a highly prevalent inflammatory condition, with significant effects on morbidity and quality of life. Given that other chronic inflammatory conditions have been associated with increased mortality risk, we sought to evaluate the relationship between mortality and CRS including the influence of asthma. Our objective was to determine if CRS, with or without asthma, is associated with altered risk of mortality. METHODS: Using a statewide population database, we retrospectively identified 27,005 patients diagnosed with CRS between 1996 and 2012, and 134,440 unaffected controls matched 5:1 on birth year and sex. Risk of mortality was determined from Cox models and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to compare survival. RESULTS: A significant interaction between CRS and asthma status was observed in which CRS appeared to confer a protective effect in asthma patients. Asthma, when present, increased mortality in CRS-negative controls (p-interaction < 0.0001). Independent of asthma status, CRS patients exhibited a decreased mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 0.85) compared to controls. However, in patients diagnosed at or before the median age of CRS onset (42 years) independent of asthma status, survival was not improved (HR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.18). Risk of mortality was greater in CRS with nasal polyps (n = 1643) compared to 25,362 polyp-negative CRS patients (HR = 1.38; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.77). CONCLUSION: CRS was associated with lower risk of mortality compared to controls, and appeared to mitigate increased mortality from asthma. We posit that better survival conferred by CRS may be secondary to treatment. However, the etiology of this relationship and the effect of CRS treatment on mortality are unknown.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".