Nasal fibroscopy as a routine screening procedure of sinonasal adenocarcinoma of woodworkers: French longitudinal case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the relevancy of flexible nasoendoscopy as a routine screening procedure of sinonasal adenocarcinoma among people occupationally exposed to wood dust. METHODS: This study included woodworkers, occupationally exposed to wood dust. Evaluations were scheduled at the time of inclusion (T0) and after a 2-year period (T1). A questionnaire was used for standardized data collection. The score was based on anatomic landmarks on each side that are parts of the olfactory clefts: the area of middle turbinate, the anterior part of the olfactory cleft, the top of the choanal arch, the spheno-ethmoidal recess, the posterior part of the olfactory cleft, and the middle part of the olfactory cleft. RESULTS: A total of 965 nasoendoscopies (T0+T1) were performed. Olfactory clefts were visualized in 72% of the cases. Nasoendoscopies revealed pathological findings in 33.6% of cases: polyps, thick nasal secretion aspect, mucous edema, retractile scars and synechia, crusts, mucous erythema, and growth. One case of carcinoma was confirmed. Adverse effects (epistaxis, blood mark on the endo-sheath, sneezing, or rhinorrhea) after the medical procedure occurred in 30% of cases without severe complications. CONCLUSION: Flexible nasoendoscopy offers meaningful efficacy and a promising safety profile, and, therefore, could become the new cornerstone of the routine screening procedure of sinonasal adenocarcinoma among woodworkers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".