The Upper Airway Nasal Complex: Structural Contribution to Persistent Nasal Obstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To determine the contribution of the nasal floor and hard palate morphology to nasal obstruction for nonresponders to prior intranasal surgery. Study Design Retrospective case‐control study. Setting Tertiary academic center. Methods Institutional review board–approved, retrospective institutional database analysis was obtained of a cohort of 575 patients who presented with nasal obstruction over a 21‐year period. Of the patients, 89 met inclusion criteria: 52 were placed into the experimental group, defined as having persistent nasal obstruction following endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS), septoplasty, nasal valve repair, and/or turbinoplasty using validated subjective questionnaires, and 37 were placed into the control group, defined as having resolution of subjective nasal obstruction. Computed tomography imaging was presented to 3 blinded experts, who measured numerous nasal airway and hard palate morphology parameters, including anterior nasal floor width, anterior maxillary angle, maxilla width, anterior nasal floor width, and palatal vault height. Standard demographic information, comorbidities, perioperative 22‐item Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT‐22), and follow‐up time were also assessed. Wilcox rank sum analysis or t test was performed where appropriate. Results Follow‐up ranged from 2 to 36 months following surgical intervention. Several skeletal characteristics within the upper airway were significantly associated with persistent nasal obstruction, including acute maxillary angle (P =. 035), narrow maxillary width (P =. 006), and high arched palate (P =. 004). Conclusion Persistent nasal obstruction may be seen in patients with narrow, high arched hard palate despite prior nasal surgical intervention and may benefit from additional skeletal remodeling procedures such as maxillary expansion.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".