Lateral Wall Insufficiency Severity and Patient-Reported Nasal Obstruction Measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nasal Obstruction MeasuresLateral wall insufficiency (LWI) as an etiology of nasal obstruction was originally described by the senior author (S.P.M.) as dynamic collapse of the lateral nasal wall with inspiration. 1 It is divided into 2 zones, with zone 1 corresponding to the sidewall and zone 2 corresponding to the ala. 1 This study sought to explore differences in LWI severity 2 in patients seen in consultation for functional, cosmetic, and combined rhinoplasty, and to determine if a correlation exists between physician-determined LWI severity 2 and patient-reported nasal obstruction measures, including the nasal obstruction symptom evaluation (NOSE) scores and a visual analog scale (VAS).Methods | A retrospective study of all patients seen by the senior author for rhinoplasty consultation between January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2016, were identified.Patients were divided into functional, cosmetic, and combination subgroups.For a given zone, LWI scores from both sides were averaged.One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare LWI scores between groups.Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated between LWI grades, NOSE, and VAS scores.Significance level was P < .05.The study was approved by the Stanford University institutional review board and written informed consent was waived owing to the retrospective nature of the study.Results | A total of 469 patients (203 men, 266 women) were included in analysis (Table 1).Of the 469 patients, 213 (45%) underwent surgery by the senior author (S.P.M).One-way
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".