Evaluation of The Improvement of Clinical and Radiological Scores with Doxycycline in the Treatment of Nasal Polyposis: A Randomized Double Blind Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although several trials have been proposed for nasal polyposis (NP) treatment, but no standard guideline has been declared yet. We evaluated the effect of doxycycline on NP treatment. In a double- blind randomized clinical trial, 48 patients with bilateral nasal polyposis were assigned to receive doxycycline and placebo capsules for 8 weeks and were followed monthly for 4 months. Patients were assessed for polyp size, severity of symptoms and quality of life according to the endoscopic examination, VAS score, CT scanning and SNOT-22 respectively. polyp size reduced significantly after 8 weeks of treatment in the drug group. The quality of life score has raised significantly after 2 months of treatment with doxycycline. By giving –up the drug, severity of symptoms started to grow-up after 2 months. Although a course of doxycycline improved nasal symptoms, polyp size and CT findings, but further studies with more patients and longer follow-up course are required to establish the foundation to recommend this drug as an important treatment in NP.
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 | 0.027 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".