The Case of the Missing Nose: Congenital Arhinia Case Presentation and Management Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To discuss the presentation and management of infants with arhinia or congenital absence of the nose. Methods: This case report describes an infant with arhinia that was diagnosed prenatally. In addition to a discussion of the case, a review of the literature was completed to define appropriate postnatal work-up and management. Results: The patient is a term male infant, diagnosed with arhinia on ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) performed at 21-weeks gestational age. Upon birth, the patient was subsequently intubated, followed by tracheostomy due to complete nasal obstruction. Through a genetics evaluation, the patient was found to be heterozygous for the SMCHD1 gene, with hypomethylation at the D4Z4 locus. Plans for reconstruction will be based on future imaging and the development of any nasal patency, however, the patient’s family plans to utilize a prosthetic nose until the patient is older. Conclusion: Arhinia is a rare condition causing respiratory distress in the neonatal period. While stabilization of the airway is the first priority, further management is not clearly defined given the rarity of the malformation. This case discusses stabilization of the airway with a review of treatment and reconstructive options.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".