MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606725950 · doi:10.1016/j.carj.2016.12.009

Fungal Rhinosinusitis: A Radiological Review with Intraoperative Correlation

2017· review· en· W2606725950 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Association of Radiologists Journal · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSinusitis and nasal conditions
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineParanasal sinusesPathologySinus (botany)DiseaseSinusitisChronic rhinosinusitisFungal sinusitisSurgeryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The interaction between fungi and the sinonasal tract results in a range of clinical presentations with a broad spectrum of clinical severity. The most commonly accepted classification system divides fungal rhinosinusitis into invasive and noninvasive subtypes based on histopathological evidence of tissue invasion by fungi. Invasive fungal rhinosinusitis is subdivided into acute invasive and chronic invasive categories. The chronic invasive category includes a subcategory of chronic granulomatous disease. Noninvasive fungal disease includes localized fungal colonization, fungal ball, and allergic fungal rhinosinusitis. Noninvasive disease is simply fungal material (or the products of the inflammatory reaction of the sinus mucosa) that fills the sinuses but does not invade tissue. Bone loss is related to expansion of the sinus(es). Invasive disease causes tissue destruction, such that it expands past the bony confines of the sinuses. It can rapidly spread, causing acute necrosis. Alternatively, there may be slow tissue invasion characterized by symptoms confused with normal sinusitis, but destruction of normal nasal and paranasal structures.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.291 · 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