Reliability and construct validity of the Ottawa valve collapse scale when assessing external nasal valve collapse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nasal valve collapse is a common cause of nasal obstruction in otolaryngology practice. Common examination methods, such as the Cottle Maneuver and modified Cottle Maneuver are available. However, these methods are dichotomous and do not provide ordinal severity information. The Ottawa Valve Collapse Scale (OVCS) is a grading system for assessing and easily grading external nasal valve collapse in patients with a septal deviation. The primary objective was to assess the test-retest reliability and construct validity of the OVCS grading scale. A secondary objective was to perform the same assessments on the Cottle Maneuver. METHODS: Patients with a septal deviation who were requesting surgical correction were prospectively enrolled in the study. All patients were assessed using both the Cottle Maneuver and the OVCS by one otolaryngologist at two visits separated by one month. The phi coefficient was calculated to assess the test-retest reliability of the instruments. Results of the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) Score was compared to determine construct validity. RESULTS: Ninety-two patients met our inclusion criteria. The phi coefficient was 0.62 for the OVCS and 0.32 for the Cottle Maneuver. The scores on the NOSE instrument were positively associated with the OVCS scores (p = 0.01) while there was no association with the Cottle Maneuver (p = 047). CONCLUSION: This current preliminary analysis suggests that the novel Ottawa Valve Collapse Scale has good test-retest reliability and construct validity. This scale may help clinicians grade external nasal valve collapse in patients with a septal deviation. Future studies are required to determine if this scale assists surgeons in determining which patients need formal nasal valve surgery in addition to a standard septoplasty.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".