Appropriateness criteria predict outcomes for sinus surgery and may aid in future patient selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Appropriateness criteria to determine surgical candidacy for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) have recently been described. This study stratified patients who underwent endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) according to these new appropriateness criteria and evaluated postoperative improvements among appropriateness categories. METHODS: Adult patients with uncomplicated CRS electing ESS were prospectively enrolled in a multi-institutional cohort study between March 2011 and June 2015 to assess outcomes. Subsequently, appropriateness criteria that consider preoperative medical therapy, 22-item SinoNasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) scores, and Lund-Mackay computed tomography scores were retrospectively applied. RESULTS: A total of 92.6% (436 of 471) were categorized as "appropriate" ESS candidates, 3.8% (18 of 471) as "uncertain," and 3.6% (17 of 471) as "inappropriate." Among uncertain patients, two-thirds (12 of 18) had identifiable reasons for undergoing ESS, most commonly oral corticosteroid intolerance (n = 6). Postoperative follow-up was available for 79% (n = 372). Clinically significant SNOT-22 improvements occurred in both appropriate and uncertain groups (all P < 0.050) but not among the inappropriate group. The inappropriate group reported less mean improvement in SNOT-22 total score compared to appropriate (P = 0.008) and uncertain (P = 0.006) groups. CONCLUSION: The vast majority of patients (∼93%) who underwent ESS in a multi-institutional research program were identified as appropriate candidates for surgical intervention, as defined by current appropriateness criteria. Valid considerations frequently exist for offering ESS to patients categorized as uncertain. Appropriate and uncertain candidates report similar, clinically significant SNOT-22 improvements following surgery. Patients classified as inappropriate reported significantly less improvement following ESS. Surgical appropriateness criteria may assist in predicting outcomes of ESS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b. Laryngoscope, 2448-2454, 2018.
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 | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".