Intranasal Opioid-Induced Destruction of the Nose and Throat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les opioïdes jouent un rôle important dans le traitement de la douleur de nombreux patients, mais sont de plus en plus associés au trouble de l’utilisation de substances et à des effets indésirables en Amérique du Nord. Dans cette étude de cas, nous décrivons le premier cas canadien de séquelles significatives intranasales et pharyngiques suite à l’utilisation d’opioïdes intranasaux. Les approches de diagnostic et de traitement sont ensuite décrites. Chez les patients présentant des représentations atypiques, les lésions tissulaires induites par les opioïdes intranasaux devraient être envisagées dans le diagnostic différentiel des lésions tumorales otolaryngologiques. Ce cas souligne l’importance de pouvoir reconnaître les complications otolaryngologiques de la mauvaise utilisation des opioïdes intranasaux et traiter ainsi de manière appropriée en utilisant une approche multidisciplinaire. ABSTRACT Opioids play an important part in the pain management of many patients, but are increasingly associated with substance use disorder and adverse events in North America. In this case report, we describe the first noted Canadian case of significant intranasal and pharyngeal sequelae of intranasal opioid use. Diagnostic and treatment approaches are then described. In patients with atypical presentations, intranasal opioid-induced tissue damage should be considered in the differential diagnosis of otolaryngologic tissue damage. This case highlights the importance of being able to recognize the otolaryngologic complications of intranasal opioid misuse and thereby appropriately treat using a multidisciplinary approach.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".