Inferior Meatus Augmentation Procedure (IMAP) to Treat Empty Nose Syndrome: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our understanding of empty nose syndrome (ENS) continues to evolve. Prior studies evaluating airway augmentation to treat ENS did not use validated disease‐specific questionnaires, making the true impact of these surgeries unclear. We present a case series of 10 patients with ENS (11 procedures) who underwent the inferior meatus augmentation procedure (IMAP) between September 2014 and May 2017. Subjective outcomes of IMAP included comparisons of preoperative and postoperative assessments (1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months) using the Empty Nose Syndrome 6‐item Questionnaire (ENS6Q), Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ‐9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7‐item Scale (GAD‐7), and Sino‐Nasal Outcome Test–22 (SNOT‐22). The decrement in ENS6Q scores observed maintained statistical significance at 6 months (P ≤. 001). Similar results were achieved with PHQ‐9, GAD‐7, and SNOT‐22 (P ≤. 01, P ≤. 01, P ≤. 001, respectively). IMAP can dramatically improve the quality of life of ENS patients regarding both ENS‐specific symptoms and psychological well‐being.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".