Case-control study of endoscopic polypectomy in clinic (EPIC) versus endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis with polyps
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic Polypectomy In Clinic (EPIC) is a recently described deescalated form of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) performed in the outpatient clinic for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with polyps (CRSwNP). The quality of life benefit of EPIC in comparison to ESS is not known. The purpose of this study was to determine if the disease specific quality of life measured with the SNOT-22 attained with EPIC is similar to that attained with ESS for patients with CRSwNP. METHODS: A multi-institutional observational case-control study was performed to evaluate quality of life improvement in patients treated with ESS and EPIC for CRSwNP with a 3 month follow-up. Predicted probability of undergoing EPIC was calculated by fitting a logistic regression model using clinically relevant variables. EPIC patients were matched to ESS patients in a 1:1 fashion. RESULTS: 24 pairs were analyzed after matching. There was no statistical difference in the post-treatment SNOT-22 scores or proportion of patients achieving a minimal clinically important difference. CONCLUSIONS: In appropriate CRSwNP patients, the EPIC procedure may provide disease specific quality of life improvement similar to that seen with patients who undergo traditional ESS.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it