Eustachian tube symptoms are frequent in chronic rhinosinusitis and respond well to endoscopic sinus surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Symptoms of Eustachian tube (ET) dysfunction are seldom assessed in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). The Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) quality-of-life tool includes two questions that specifically screen for symptoms of ET dysfunction (Ear Fullness; Ear Pain). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which these ET symptoms were present in patients with CRS, and whether these symptoms respond to endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). METHODOLOGY: SNOT-22 data collected prospectively at time of recruitment into IRB-approved clinical trials or case-control studies in CRS was pooled to provide a cross section of the frequency and severity of ET dysfunction. When applicable to the trials, the SNOT-22 was repeated at least 3 months following ESS. RESULTS: Five trials rendering 131 patients were available for assessment. The control group comprised of 251 participants from two case-control studies. Ear Fullness of equal/greather than 1 was reported in 80/131 CRS patients compared to 45/251 control patients. Ear Pain of equal/greather than 1 was reported in 39/131 CRS patients compared to 33/251 control patients. Following ESS, mean Ear Fullness and Ear Pain scores decreased to 1.17 and 0.73, respectively. CONCLUSION: Symptoms suggestive of ET dysfunction are frequent in CRS, and for most patients the symptoms will decrease post-ESS to a level comparable with a non-CRS population. Patients whose ET symptoms do not respond to ESS may represent a target population for emerging therapeutic options for ET dysfunction.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".